Shooting in Las Vegas, 58 killed, 515 wounded

[Akito Kinomoto]

I would like to take a moment to illuminate this article. Let the salient facts detonate in your mind

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/nV5fXPVeZoQ

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Valky]

Gun control purpose never was to prevent homicide in the first place. People could kill others even without guns. It could prevent another massive shooting, maybe, just like in Australia.

Well, if the NRA is still have that much power. I doubt there will be any gun control law ever in the US. It'll be politically suicide for a lot of politicians to support that. I think there are several politicians in Australia that did that and ended up not re-elected after too. They did it because they thought it's the right thing, but we know there's no way that kind of reason pass in the US.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Valky

Gun control purpose never was to prevent homicide in the first place. People could kill others even without guns. It could prevent another massive shooting, maybe, just like in Australia.

Well, if the NRA is still have that much power. I doubt there will be any gun control law ever in the US. It'll be politically suicide for a lot of politicians to support that. I think there are several politicians in Australia that did that and ended up not re-elected after too. They did it because they thought it's the right thing, but we know there's no way that kind of reason pass in the US.

At some point you had to think it isn't just the NRA, but the voters. But I have been criticised over and over that voting doesn't matter anyway, so American voters are not responsible for absolutely anything while people die.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Most Democrats, independents, Republicans, and even NRA members are in favor of some moderate gun reform, including universal background checks. The NRA leadership is at fault for buying off enough politicians to the point where they would not want to pass gun reform legislation in the first place

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Most Democrats, independents, Republicans, and even NRA members are in favor of some moderate gun reform, including universal background checks. The NRA leadership is at fault for buying off enough politicians to the point where they would not want to pass gun reform legislation in the first place

None of the politicians were elected on a gun control platform, so what made you think they needed to be bribed?

At some point the votes had to realise they can't blame other people.

[Sheba]

Its political suicide because most if not all the most vocal defenders of gun possession rights happens to live in states that are décisive in élections. Those live in à constructed world where the fédéral state is evil, corrupt and 1 step away from enacting the Evil Plan to install a Police State.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Financial campaign contributions from special interests--the NRA and gun manufactures in this instance--influence policy decisions more than voter demand most of the time

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Financial campaign contributions from special interests--the NRA and gun manufactures in this instance--influence policy decisions more than voter demand most of the time

You are avoiding the issue. No American politician had been elected on gun control, so there is no need to blame the NRA for what the people choose. If and when politicians get elected on gun control and THEN changed his stance, we will talk about the NRA.

The voters are the first line of defence, not the last. The voters broke first.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are avoiding the issue. No American politician had been elected on gun control, so there is no need to blame the NRA for what the people choose. If and when politicians get elected on gun control and THEN changed his stance, we will talk about the NRA.

The voters are the first line of defence, not the last. The voters broke first.

Ah, I see. It is understandable that you would hold optimism that most politicians actually represent what the voters want. The reality of the influence of money in politics has a deafening roar blocking out the constituents, unfortunately

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are avoiding the issue. No American politician had been elected on gun control, so there is no need to blame the NRA for what the people choose. If and when politicians get elected on gun control and THEN changed his stance, we will talk about the NRA.

The voters are the first line of defence, not the last. The voters broke first.

Not really true. Bernie Sanders even lost an election once because of his NRA voting record. But more importantly, it's not Democrats that Republicans fear losing elections to because of going against the NRA, it's Republican primary challengers that they fear. That is why Republicans don't change positions on that, the NRA is powerful and vocal in this country.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Ah, I see. It is understandable that you would hold optimism that most politicians actually represent what the voters want. The reality of the influence of money in politics has a deafening roar blocking out the constituents, unfortunately

You are playing dumb. No one is being blocked out. Politicians who campaign on gun control don't get elected by VOTERS. You are saying it doesn't matter because the NRA is there, but that makes no sense. Give me evidence of NRA changing an anti-gun politician's stance after winning the election.

You are dismissing the action of the voters because... Because you don't think voting matters? Thart's circular logic. Voters can elect anti-gun politicians, American Voters just choose not to.

[Ithekro]

The reason it does not get run as a platform anymore is because it was used as a platform in the 1990s when a bunch of gun control regulations and laws were passed. They didn't do anything to help the situation in the ten or fifteen years they were in effect. Some statistics suggested that the regulations made it worse because the criminal element now knew the civilians would not be armed. When they came up for renewal during the Bush administration, they were allowed to expire, and leave the regulations to the state governments.

I would note that was another issue with H. Clinton as the 90s era gun control bills were something she was champoning. The Brady Bill and Handgun Inc. I believe they were called.

These days gun control is left to the state governments. California, for instance, has rather strict laws, while Arizona does not.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are playing dumb. No one is being blocked out. Politicians who campaign on gun control don't get elected by VOTERS. You are saying it doesn't matter because the NRA is there, but that makes no sense. Give me evidence of NRA changing an anti-gun politician's stance after winning the election.

You are dismissing the action of the voters because... Because you don't think voting matters? Thart's circular logic. Voters can elect anti-gun politicians, American Voters just choose not to.

Let me unpack this for accessibility. Politician A does not run on a platform of Policy X, but that is not the same as campaigning against Policy X. Politician A takes Xamountof$ from Special Interest S during the campaign, and Special Interest S will benefit from Policy X not being enacted. Politician A still does not run for or against Policy X, but Xamountof$ will influence Politician A to not support Policy X when in office

To crystallize this, nobody runs on a platform against regulation that would help keep waterways clean. However, someone may take Xamountof$ during a campaign from a special interest that benefits from said regulation not being passed

I must also inquire how I am dismissing the voters, when it is the politicians who, at large, enact policies that favor their donors and not the people who elected them

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are dismissing the action of the voters because... Because you don't think voting matters? Thart's circular logic. Voters can elect anti-gun politicians, American Voters just choose not to.

Oh look who's ONCE AGAIN baiting with his "All Voters are responsible for anything and everything that happens" nonsense. Which would be humorous if it weren't a broken record at this point, since you yourself said that they weren't elected for their stance on gun control.

If no one is running on anti-gun, how can one elect an anti-gun politician? But I'm sure this must somehow also be the fault of every voter, even those outside of said politician's voting area.

Further, I do believe that gun control had its own thread and it got locked. Multiple times. Maybe this thread about the Vegas shooting should remain about the Vegas shooting rather than trying to make it political with gun control debate?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by GDB

Oh look who's ONCE AGAIN baiting with his "All Voters are responsible for anything and everything that happens" nonsense. Which would be humorous if it weren't a broken record at this point, since you yourself said that they weren't elected for their stance on gun control.

If no one is running on anti-gun, how can one elect an anti-gun politician? But I'm sure this must somehow also be the fault of every voter, even those outside of said politician's voting area.

Further, I do believe that gun control had its own thread and it got locked. Multiple times. Maybe this thread about the Vegas shooting should remain about the Vegas shooting rather than trying to make it political with gun control debate?

I do not believe he was trying to make it an issue about gun control, but about voter responsibility. I can understand the need to bring up voter responsibility in order to make up for past failures to properly solidify his thoughts on the subject. I would not suggest argument from malice and everything in good faith, so perhaps we should continue educating pundits to avoid rhetoric in good faith marinated in ignorance

[Toukairin]

Is it normal that we still know nothing about the shooter's motivations when weapons, notes, and computers have been seized, scanned, and analyzed by now? Usually after a mass shootout, we get to know what went through the mind of the rotten apple. But in this case, we know nothing.

[Key Board]

it won't be confirmed, but I'm sure it's spouse/mistress related
I suspect he's another Andreas Lubitz

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are playing dumb. No one is being blocked out. Politicians who campaign on gun control don't get elected by VOTERS. You are saying it doesn't matter because the NRA is there, but that makes no sense. Give me evidence of NRA changing an anti-gun politician's stance after winning the election.

You are dismissing the action of the voters because... Because you don't think voting matters? Thart's circular logic. Voters can elect anti-gun politicians, American Voters just choose not to.

Jon Oliver does a really good job of breaking down exactly HOW the NRA influences legislation... He even includes a pro-gun republican lawmaker who had the support of the NRA who tried to push forward some form of very modest gun control; The result was the NRA releasing attack ads against him

Yes voters do matter, but the NRA has influence over voters; specifically conservative voters. They hit republicans so hard over gun control that they are afraid of making any kind of move in favor of gun control because they fear it will effect them at election time. The NRA can't influence democrats since their voters aren't big fans of gun, but the NRA is pretty much the reason why anti-gun republicans are pretty much non-existant in congress

As for Voters themselves, the only way they can elect a pro-gun control lawmaker is if one is actually running. However gun control is almost exclusively democrats these days, and there are many voters who will not vote for democrats for a wide variety of other issues. Republicans are basically the only ones they will vote for and thanks to the NRA, they are pretty much universally against gun control. This is why it sucks to have a two party system.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Slayerx

Republicans are basically the only ones they will vote for and thanks to the NRA, they are pretty much universally against gun control. This is why it sucks to have a two party system.

I don't see the problem, if Republicans are anti-gun control, then that's what the voters decided. My entire point is that the voters have not turned against gun ownership and that it isn't the NRA that secretly does anything shady.

In the end America is far more right wing than anyone realised. And this is why I find it silly when the argument began earlier, where the claim was that the American population are allegedly pro-gun-control.