Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by martyb on Monday October 02 2017, @04:18PM   Printer-friendly

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/02/554976369/section-of-las-vegas-strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting

A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.

Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 03 2017, @12:30PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 03 2017, @12:30PM (#576550) Journal

    If your argument is primarily a legal one that the government does not have the right to implement gun control, then would you reverse your opinion if a constitutional amendment were passed banning private ownership of firearms?

    Or they might drop altogether their support for the Constitution and government. After all, how is it going to happen that this amendment passes? The current pro-gun control strategy right now is to latch onto every high profile shooting. That's just not working because there aren't enough such shootings. Without public support for the amendment, how is it going to happen? Answer: political chicanery. At that level, you're speaking of manipulating the basic framework without democratic input. That delegitimizes the framework fast.

  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday October 04 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)

    by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday October 04 2017, @02:37AM (#576899)

    That's just not working because there aren't enough such shootings

    Give it a few years. The rate of mass shootings in the US is increasing over time. Though I agree that if Sandy Hook wasn't going to change hearts, there is a little way to go yet.

    Though I would've thought that just one mass shooting would be "enough". Australia suffered a mass shooting in 1996 which led to stricter gun controls*. In the 21 years since, we have not had a single mass shooting. The total number of gun deaths (minus suicides) per year has kept dropping and the total for 2016 was less than just this one event in Vegas.

    *some higher-powered weapons were outlawed and there was an amnesty on unregistered firearms. People can still purchase and own firearms with an appropriate license

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:02AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 04 2017, @11:02AM (#576965) Journal

      The rate of mass shootings in the US is increasing over time.

      It would just due to population growth - supposing it actually is increasing over time.

      Though I would've thought that just one mass shooting would be "enough". Australia suffered a mass shooting in 1996 which led to stricter gun controls*. In the 21 years since, we have not had a single mass shooting.

      Wikipedia listed [wikipedia.org] four mass shootings since.

      • February 2, 1999 Drive by shooting which killed 1 and injured 9.
      • October 2, 2002. Spree killing at a college which killed 2 and injured 5.
      • April 29, 2011. Siege, 3 killed, 3 injured.
      • September 9, 2014. Murder-suicide, killed 5.

      There appears to have been 10 such attacks in a similar duration period before 1996, so those gun control laws may have reduced the frequency of the attacks somewhat. But as usual with these things, it probably wouldn't have done a thing for the Port Arthur massacre itself which is very similar to the Las Vegas attack (wealthy guy covertly acquiring firearms that he couldn't legally be kept away from, and employing relatively intelligent tactics).

      Finally, why should one emergency or one massacre be sufficient to take freedom away from millions or hundreds of millions of people? You're walking into a classic police state trap. Just because there are stupid and/or evil people doesn't mean the rest of us have to be punished as well.