Mass shooting at Las Vegas music fest....50 dead and 200 injured(update-400)

But your logic is mass shooters aren't willing to do anything illegal prior to the actual shooting is flawed because that's proven false as demonstrated again by laws they break before they started shooting.

Yeah I knew what he meant and I addressed most of it under the whole "intended point". But I'm saying his logic that just because they are not career criminals means they are not willing to break the law so restricting legal access to guns will essentially stop these mass shooting from happening is wrong. First of all, there's nothing to suggest legality of their preparation is of any consideration to someone hellbent on mass murder. In fact, there are plenty of evidence that demonstrate otherwise. Second of all, most of these people got their guns legally so unless access to guns are restricted for all, gun control law won't really help in addressing the specific issue of mass shooters. And taken first statement into consideration, mass shooters will just get their guns illegally if gun control is implemented for all law abiding people, so ultimately all such laws are good for is restricting guns for the people who don't intend to use guns for illegal purposes.

@kodPandering and projecting meanings behind words is arguing semantics, but I understand labeling is an attitude also common with the extreme left (/s).

I tend to focus on Constitutional Law, and case law.

Did you read about District of Columbia v. Heller?

And anyone who understands the value of language and importance of proper language will highly disagree with you...... you seem like you think that you appreciate Orwell.... you should check what he said on its importance.

Didnt need to, already knew it and i already gave you my response. So ill say it again. I tend to side with the majority of American history on this, with the majority of the American public, and not with the people who only started changing their minds on these things when the NRA started writing them blank checks.

@kod: Just to set the record straight, is your argument being the Supreme Court's landmark opinion was corrupted/bribed by the National Rifle Association and its allies?

Its a bit too summary of the situation, but yah, and weve seen it over and over and over again. Lets not forget that these are the exact same group of people who said that its unreasonable to think that them allowing corporations to donate basically unlimited funds to politicians, would ever breed any kind of political corruption......... and as another reminder, by every academic standard we no longer have a democratic republic, we have something closer to an Oligarchy.

You can't assume that. Without a gun culture and access to guns you cannot state that this would still happen. As I said most mass shooters were not criminals. Were means in the past. I was correct. Most of the time the guns are legally purchased. Not only that but if guns weren't readily available there would be less murders/suicides. Sometimes it's the right now and the access that causes a death. Intending to do something against the law by the way doesn't make them criminals. The act does. Not an intent so I don't know why you think that matters.

@kod: But a las, just because you disagree with established Constitutional Law doesn't mean it's laden with conspiracy silliness.

Right, i agree.

The problem here is my "conspiracy silliness" has been demonstrated through peer review by some of the most trusted and notable political history and science sources in the world. Stanford, Oxford, Yale. If it was simply a conspiracy idea i had, i wouldn't be so sure of myself when discussing it and i probably wouldn't discuss it unless that was the topic.

You should do a better job of keeping up with current events and legislation if you expect to take part in these conversations and keep up. I actually find it a bit shocking that you don't seem to be aware of any of this. Do you even know about citizens united?

Remember, you're the first line... the grunt... the disposable one...... a tampon.... youre a tampon, you'll end up bloody and tossed in the garbage when you attempt to defend the floodgates, when defending that tyranny you mentioned you dislike, that is currently shrinking every constitutional right we have.... except that 2nd amendment... cant do anything about that. First amendment though? Meh, **** it! Fourth?! **** it! 14th and 18th? Who needs them? Way to stand up to that tyranny my friend.

I surmise you can provide the sources then?

Sure thing, you could have googled it and discovered something you didnt know... but why bother when we can live ina confirmation bias bubble, right?

Heres Princeton & Cambridge : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

And i believe this one thats from the Texas A&M professor: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=37EDA24D1D5DA87AEB950CEFE63883FF?doi=10.1.1.668.8647&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Stanford and Yale one is fairly easy to find, but i think i had Princeton and Oxford mixed up.

Yes, why would I bother when you're making the argument - that's the point in "persuasive" opinions, a las, basic principles in providing foundations. After all, it's curious to "draw an opinion from other sources" and then scoff when asked to provide the links, as in, one should be expected too. I see one article listed and will peruse such and edit thoughts in at a later time.

Edit//Your scholarly article is an exceedingly broad take on general policy via an indepth survey - be it minimum wage, birth control, defense spending, (raw data here) etc. This article, while insightful, shows correlation between high income and policy shift influences (not necessarily successes). It doesn't provide specific insight into the Supreme Court, much less anything involving DC v. Heller. You want to step back and argue on "oligarchy" mantra, but you'er still dipping your feet into conspiracy-laden waters in discussing the Supreme Court. Do elaborate further, or provide more links.

I dunno man... maybe its just me that enjoys discovering new information and determining if what i thought i knew is actually accurate..... i guess its just me though. Sorry for projecting the idea that you were a thinking human being onto you. Didnt mean to do it, my bad.

Producing veiled responses in an attempt to convey arguments is a bore to indulge in.

I was pretty specific and direct with what i said, provided a short summary, gave you the organizations involved.. you don't consider this reasonable in a conversation? That's "veiled" to you?

Or let me guess.... you expect other people to hand feed you information, but you yourself never want to provide any kind of citation or sources because it really is unreasonable in a basic conversation that is not an essay and the reality is, its as much on me to know what im talking about as it is on you, which means you have to have some degree of knowledge on what you're against. The reason why i constantly own you in our "arguments" is because not only do i know my position, but part of the reason ive reached my conclusions are because i already know your position and have researched it without crying for you to give me citations.

Be careful KOD, we both know if you disagree with stevo too much he will give you worse then a citation ;-)

Maybe.

But it would be nice if he understood how ridiculous he often is with his arguments and the standards he wants to put on other people but not hold himself.

As always, one can disagree without being disagreeable (see sticky). If you have trouble remaining civil, then you can enjoy a vacation from the site. Keep it classy. ;)

Im saving my vacation for cali. You got me hyped with all your california police stories, what beach has the most heroin needles to step on?

It's a reasonable step in the right direction, but it's merely the seasoning to the meat - simply a tiptoe in the water, where as actual elaboration should be occurring, or at the very least, some cited quotes to back up said argument. I'm here to discuss tangible issues, or topics, not aimlessly troll and pander to conspiracies, conjecture, or far reaching silliness. The whole "go do your own research because I'm right, I know my position, and I own you." Good grief, that's just bad trolling. It's time to get off that rod and reel yourself in, or not, and see where that leaves you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You mean its kind of like mentioning a court case, expecting and then waiting for the other person to look this information up for himself? Which luckily did not have to happen, but these were your expectations... and they are your expectations every single time we have a conversation. I cant think of one time you've done what you're requesting of me right now. Which tells me you're being a bit dishonest in your argument as you clearly find it reasonable, unless you're admitting to being unreasonable.

At this point im a bit curious about what i would find if i searched your posts and found an example of someone asking you to cite information..... I have my suspicions that you would refuse.

Or its you having a reasonable expectation that someone who is denying your claim, knows a single goddamn thing about it, enough about it to respond in a cynical way and dismiss it. I dont live in a living essay, its not my job to constantly spoon feed you every tiny bit of information, and i dont have that expectation of you. Assuming you know what you're talking about when you deny something, is not an unreasonable expectation to have for myself or you. We are on a forum, having a normal conversation/debate/argument like normal human beings, not in an official debate sanctioned by UCLA.

Apparently that is simply the difference between you and i. I wont deny something if i dont know enough information on the topic to deny it. You, seem to have no problems doing this and as a result you're shown to be wrong in the majority of our conversations.

And what have you learned today? Was what i stated conjecture? Silliness? A conspiracy? No to all three. But because of these mental limitations you seem to put on yourself, you presumed this from the start and for some reason now think its a good thing to bring up.... which im not sure why. At this point it should have dawned on you that you don't know what is conspiracy, conjecture or silliness unless you yourself are willing to do the slightest amount of research to discover if that is a valid position to hold in the first place.

This goes both ways man. You dont see me throw a fit about needing information spoon fed to me whenever you bring up something that needs expanding on or external information for further clarification. And you don't put that responsibility on yourself either, so im assuming you find this acceptable and now the only problem is you not holding yourself to these same standards.

You're actually right, it is very similar - if not, a near identical scenario - but with the minor caveat of being very myopic, compared to a very broad implication. The court case I mentioned goes into the detail of even the sentence structure of the 2nd amendment, and how it applies, which was relevant to your interpretation of the said amendment. I should have quoted a specific section to it, and asked for your thoughts on the matter in how it clearly, as constitutional law, distinguishes from your viewpoint - but hindsight is always 20/20.

Where as on your "go do your own research" scenario, one is starting on a very broad search to find "peer reviewed papers" on a general topic. It would be different if you mentioned Martin Gilens research on economic elite domination; compared to say, "demonstrated through peer review by some of the most trusted and notable political history and science sources in the world." As if one should data-mine scholarly articles on a video game discussion forum to find a specific direction, never-the-less, one scholarly article doesn't exactly demonstrate a smoking gun (although, to be fair, that will never be found); especially in relation to the article being a *general touch* on wide and various topics via an in-depth survey (though insightful).

You see, the problem with confirmation bias is that you are so driven by "winning" or "owning" as you have said aptly time and time again in such a bore state - other elementary inserts there - is that your rants come off as rambling. Couple that with a distinct "reactionary" based mantra and I see an inability to disagree without being disagreeable. My goal, and not just as a GS moderator but as a poster, is to drive discussion down quality paths or at least poke it in the right direction. Every now and then, perhaps a meme or gif is necessary to widen the brow, but the end goal remains the same. I understand this isn't the UCLA, but if you want to continue to ride on a high horse with snide mantra galore - I assure you, branches are going to be around (powas).

"The problem here is my 'conspiracy silliness' has been demonstrated through peer review" - that is textural conjecture, an opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information. I don't think I need to dabble into correlation, and how variables may be related does not dictate causation. The inherent silliness is the assumption of corruption-bribery in a specific judicial case, within the highest Judicial office of the land, based on a broad survey of general policy from researcher Gilens. But a conspiracy? As in, the handgun ban in the District of Columbia v Heller was a "secret" plan to define, or elaborate, on the 2nd amendment thanks to the National Rifle Association, and its allies? So, in due course, they can continue to influence the consumer space, continue to have the hands of the five (5) Supreme Court justices who issued their opinion within their pocket, and continue to define the gun space mantra across the county? When I see a decision that comes to pass, via the Supreme Court that I do not agree with, such as for example, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, or yes, even Citizens United v. FEC, I do not believe there is an overarching conspiracy to deprive me of liberties. I would happily review and be concerned with direct evidence of corruption, but correlation or circumstantial data doesn't convince me.

If you ever need further elaboration, or sources, then do not hesitate to ask and I will provide. I have before and I find no fault in doing so because it's *reasonable* to ask of such. What's not reasonable is to go on a rant when you read something you don't like. I don't normally partake in focusing on the user compared to the content, but you did this before when you stated crime was not increasing (and I provided an FBI link saying otherwise with respect to violent crime). If you want to have a normal conversation, then continue like a decent person within the Terms of Use, if you continue to have trouble with that. You will find a new site to comment on. Simple as that.

Edit//Just proof read the above and apologies for the long winded (run-on) sentences, I blame Sam Adams.

Is it the cop in you that makes it this hard to hold yourself to the same standard as others? You keep doing this shit where you pretend what you did was some how different when its really just you running circles in your brain, proclaiming you can never be wrong or a hypocrite. As if you highlighting the part that mentioned the topic and school, and then right clicking and doing "search google" is some how more or less effort than what you're asking me to do. Its the same fucking thing, deal with it, accept it and stop this bullshit. And next time if you want to try to call me out on being wrong about something, you better know enough on that subject to deny it. You're not saying "i dont know" or "i dont know enough on the subject to comment", you're denying it, which requires you know enough on the subject to do so and if you do or do not, that is on you before you make this bold statement......not me.

"The problem here is my 'conspiracy silliness' has been demonstrated through peer review" - that is textural conjecture, an opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

No its scientific peer review.

I didnt hand you opinion pieces, i handed you peer review by political historians and scientists. In case you dont know what peer review is, its academic data compiled and then spread, checked and verified by others in that field.

Still so high-strung. The first paragraph is concurring (but also sharing an important caveat) with your hypocrisy accusation. Again, hindsight is 20/20 as I clearly mentioned. Curious on how you disagree with the caveat though, and then a bizarre rant about calling someone out on being wrong? I don't recall ever doing that here, indeed, the discussion is simply a subjective interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Keywords being subjective (opinion based) and interpretation (explanation on thoughts). We're back to going to full circle on you so focused on "being right" as if your "opinion" is *the* de-facto foundation.

I don't think you're understanding, as your opinions are based upon incomplete information - you are drawing conclusions based on factors that you cannot account for. That is conjecture. You linked a scholarly article on the interpretation of a wide variety of social programs and policies by defined demographics, in which via the in-depth survey, data was used to calculate responses/influences on given policies. You did not explain nor elaborate on how this article relates to the given discussion. I'm *not* saying the article is invalid, for it's certainly a valuable article (you can see the raw data link in one of my prior posts), but what I am saying is that it's not smoking gun to your accusation. Pardon Occam's razor, but how the Supreme Court's opinion is invalid because you're under the impression they were bought out by the NRA and its allies.

And then what did you do after that paragraph?

You want continue to want to try to divide what you did and what i did, no matter how you word it, it does not change the fact that the efforts on both of our parts, would have been EXACTLY the same. A google search and then a click. Just because you gave me a title and i gave you a very short summary w/the publisher, does not mean you didnt get enough information to get it on the first click. And just to be sure, i highlighted what i said to you, googled searched and BAM first link.

Im now drawing conclusions, the academic world of political science and history are.

If you have an issue with it, take it up with the most qualified people on this subject...... you go tell them they are wrong, don't tell me. You, a beat cop, go tell a political scientist what they have information in their field wrong, im sure it will be a good laugh for them.

You've dug down deep, and I don't foresee any valuable discussion continuing in that avenue. You can disagree, I believe it's quite different. Agree to disagree.

You still are not explaining or elaborating on the position - sidestep to state I need now to contact the original actors to give credence... on how you believe the Supreme Court's opinion on DC v. Heller is corrupt? Sigh. And with that, I tip my hat.

Right, you've made that clear and i was hoping you'd be able to face the music on this one and understand you had no leg to stand on. That the amount of work, effort and the request from both of us were exactly the same. Google search, one click, read. Google search, one click, read....... same exact effort from both of us.

And i explained my position, you said it was wrong without knowing a single damn thing about it.

I gave you multiple peer reviews on my position and the problem, and it appears that without reading them, you're saying they are wrong or incomplete.

At the very least you should be backing away from your hard stance, even if you're suggesting i have not given enough evidence for us to say this, but you cant because that would mean you admit to being wrong at one point and you never seem capable of doing this.