Active shooter on Las Vegas strip.

[Deleted]

The onion is on fire.

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/sho...ocialMarketing

This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut

I enjoyed this, thank you.

[Toogoodman]

240b is 7.62... M249 is 5.56..

He was using .308 and .223. These are not interchangeable with those weapons, even though they can usually fit in the same chambering.

.223 is .556, and 7.62 is .308, 556 and 762 are just the NATO classifications while 223 and 308 are USA identifiers, not being an ass, thats just what it is

[static28]

Weapons were purchased legally in both California and Nevada - and apparently this guy passed regular background checks in order to get them. The weapons included AR-15's (according to Fox news).

The gun shop he bought from in Nevada posted a message that included this statement "all necessary background checks and procedures were followed, as required by local, state, and federal law. He never gave any indication or reason to believe he was unstable or unfit at any time."

The key part to me I put in bold. This is why background checks need to be expanded to include mental capacity.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm not being obtuse. There are thousands of people that live normal everyday lives that if examined would be found to have sociopathic personalities or other "obvious psychiatric disorders" . These people are not breaking any laws, they are no danger to anyone, they have the same rights as each and everyone one of us. Due process is required to remove any single person's Rights. Removing one's Rights is an individual decision that must be made by a Court not by a medical diagnosis.

The only general categories of people that have rights removed are those that have been proven by their actions - not a medical diagnosis. These are groups such as felons, unlawful users of controlled substances, etc.

I am sorry but you are wrong we do this all the time convicts go to jail and can't vote their rights are taken away not by a court but by the law. We can come to a compromise and make a court with an advisory board headed by medical professional, just because you can lead a normal life doesn't mean you should be given access to a gun.

[petej0]

Now I wonder who and why they did that? It must of been because "both sides" are equally bad I guess.

Both sides are bad. Both sides have had opportunities to reverse that "amendment" but they just dont care. I am surprised no other non-profit or private organization has stepped up to do what the CDC couldnt. This isnt something that the Federal Government needs to do. We do have organizations like American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America etc.. that operate independent of the CDC

[kaelleria]

Less guns in the nation may have changed it more than pretending that more guns solves anything. But as I said, these shootings is what you want. And you got it. Congrats! I'd like to see the stat for popcorn consumption of today. And the ratings of CNN.

Its almost like decreasing the amount of guns available has a noticeable affect on gun related violence...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.1f59c34ca9d8

[Runenwächter]

A large group of people, some in these forums don't see the benefit in mental health care or actual health care. S before too long their 2nd amendment they like so much (myself included) will start to be more heavily regulated. There is no more ignoring this problem, anymore then there is ignoring other problem in America that a lot of people keep calling "isolated incidence".

Listen I hate to be the one to offer this much pesimism when such a terrible atrocity was just commited, but you (not the personal you, the US you) have been ignoring (as in talked a lot about, but not taken decisive steps to adress and fix) at the very least these issues: income inequality, the conflicts and strains on the system by illegal immigration, the increasing friction of minority cultures, an abysmal healthcare system where the rich get the best the world has to offer but the poor only so much as a temporary fix, ridiculous cost for meds, crumbling infrastructure, government corruption and lobbying, jerrymandering to the detriment of minority voters (on both party and ethnical lines), increasing militarization of police while insufficiently trained and vetted, quasi internet monopoly by a very few net providers and repeal of net neutrality.

I know it sounds harsh and this isnt meant as something Id adress the victims families with, but every one of these issues affect the rest of US citizens far more than a random shooter. If you discount the introduction of the affordable health care act (as a positive thing), you have been successfully ignoring or increasing every one of these problems.

It is possible you can break the stranglehold the conservatives and the NRA have on the issue AND, and thats a big speculation, things change for the better. But I'd rather expect pigs to fly on their own accord.

[Slant]

Its almost like decreasing the amount of guns available has a noticeable affect on gun related violence...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.1f59c34ca9d8

Blasphemy!

[Huehuecoyotl]

You don't need full gun control to help to prevent this kind of thing. You just need a series of fairly common sense things to happen:

1. Make it illegal for people with mental health problems to own guns, or buy guns, or be given guns by anyone else. To have any access to firearms, period. In the event that they get access to them, the shop/range/gun-show/idiot that provides them becomes legally liable.
2. Anyone who wants to own firearms to face a periodic mental health test; paid for by a tax levied on the weapons sold and the companies manufacturing them. Failure to attend such a test, or to register to be liable for such a test, to lead to a presumed failure of said test, resulting in banning from owning weapons.
3. Provide the police with sufficient resources and laws in every state for them to be able to address concerns about specific individuals by using such banning orders against them. Attempts to circumvent said banning orders to be considered a criminal act giving the police the ability to lock them up for the safety of themselves and those around them.

I'm not suggesting a blanket ban of weapons, mainly because that's a genie that's never going back in the bottle. But for gods sake get them away from people with serious mental health problems. And give police the tools they need to be able to do that; with legislative support for them when they do. And if the NRA types want to stand in the way of this, then fair enough. But they all have to move homes so that both of their immediate neighbours are people with serious mental health issues and high powered weapons. If they want to stand in the way of trying to improve this situation, then lets see how they feel about being first in line for the consequences.

[chazus]

.223 is .556, and 7.62 is .308, 556 and 762 are just the NATO classifications while 223 and 308 are USA identifiers, not being an ass, thats just what it is

That's... totally incorrect. It's not just 'classification'. They're different ammo, with different power, pressure, design, and even size. Some ammo doesn't even fit or can't fire in some weapons (some weapons can fire both). Those two weapons are not one of them.

[Cilraaz]

.223 is .556, and 7.62 is .308, 556 and 762 are just the NATO classifications while 223 and 308 are USA identifiers, not being an ass, thats just what it is

.223 and 5.56 are not the same round. They are the same bullet. However, they are necked differently and have different chamber pressures. Some 5.56 chambers will accept a .223 (I'm not familiar with the M249 to be able to say either way), but not all. Some .223 chambers can accept a 5.56, but shouldn't due to pressure differences.

I don't have enough knowledge on 7.62 vs .308, but as I understand, it's fairly similar.

[Daelak]

A light read of that article and what the amendment says shows that there's nothing technically preventing the research from happening, it just says the money can't be used to advocate or support gun control.

The fact that no research has been done using this money, citing this amendment as a reason, really just kind of illustrates that everyone thinks that any research performed will end up with results that unequivocally support a stance that advocated for gun control.

Whether that's 100% accurate or not will likely remain unknown, but doesn't it seem fishy that basically the only reason the research isn't being done (using that money specifically) is because we already have a good idea where that will lead?

Ding ding ding! It also allowed gun-rights obsessors and open-carry advocates appeal to lack of information as well as appealing to perfection in laws restricting firearm ownership and production.

[Ahovv]

12 hours later and people are still rambling about gun control when the guns involved were very clearly already illegal.

You guys are pathetic.

[Mafic]

The onion is on fire.

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/sho...ocialMarketing

This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut

Yup that sums it up nicely.

+100000000000

Onion nails this one good.

[chazus]

12 hours later and people are still rambling about gun control when the guns involved were very clearly already illegal.

You guys are pathetic.

Actually, the weapons were legally bought. So.......... yeah.

[primalmatter]

12 hours later and people are still rambling about gun control when the guns involved were very clearly already illegal.

You guys are pathetic.

It is hard to reconcile that their long held beliefs have caused nothing but pain and suffering. You must give them time and even then some will deny it till their death bed.

Me? I am going to go find this snack bar I keep hearing about. I hear its worth killing someone over.

[Daelak]

Both sides are bad. Both sides have had opportunities to reverse that "amendment" but they just dont care. I am surprised no other non-profit or private organization has stepped up to do what the CDC couldnt. This isnt something that the Federal Government needs to do. We do have organizations like American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America etc.. that operate independent of the CDC

Other medical institutions and universities have taken the helm, but like all "private charity/investment/research is better because small government" arguments, the resources nor the long-term view of the issue at hand of private institutions is large enough to handle it. This is a critical public health issue that should be treated like events that cause widespread trauma and death.

[Citizen T]

I am sorry but you are wrong we do this all the time convicts go to jail and can't vote their rights are taken away not by a court but by the law. We can come to a compromise and make a court with an advisory board headed by medical professional, just because you can lead a normal life doesn't mean you should be given access to a gun.

I suggest you finish reading my post you replied to.

The only general categories of people that have rights removed are those that have been proven by their actions - not a medical diagnosis. These are groups such as felons, unlawful users of controlled substances, etc.

These people have done nothing to deserve having their Constitutional Rights removed. There is a reason they are considered Individual Rights, not group rights. This is why it is required to be adjudicated mentally incompetent, not diagnosed with mental conditions.

[chazus]

Me? I am going to go find this snack bar I keep hearing about. I hear its worth killing someone over.

Real, real poor taste, man

[Cilraaz]

Actually, the weapons were legally bought. So.......... yeah.

Were they legally bought, but illegally modified? Were they legally purchased with a Class 3? I've heard conflicting information on how they were made automatic.