Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

[pnewton]

You can kill a lot more people with ammonium nitrate than you can with almost any gun you can imagine.

At least with ammonium nitrate we do not have a powerful lobby of explosive collectors that insist on their right to their hobby of collecting explosives.

 

[exnihilo]

I am not saying that eliminating guns is the answer. That is equally absurd. But at some point we must consider ways to limit gun availability to every human being, especially the most deadly of guns.

What are your specific solutions that you can guarantee (this is important) will prevent this many people from being killed ever again? The few specific solutions I’ve heard offered are all bans. That isn’t a way to limit their availability.

 

[pnewton]

What are your specific solutions that you can guarantee…

This is the very type of language that does not good. No one asks questions like this except to make a point. Cities will build a fire station, have a police department and set traffic laws. It would be absurd to expect otherwise because the cannot guarantee there will be no one killed in fires, or by crime, or in traffic accidents. We have drug laws that say you cannot snort PCP. Yet there is no guarantee that no one who snorts PCP won’t kill anyone.

The one specific I think we could have is to stop the legal reselling and trading of firearms.

 

[Inisfallen]

What are your specific solutions that you can guarantee (this is important) will prevent this many people from being killed ever again? The few specific solutions I’ve heard offered are all bans. That isn’t a way to limit their availability.

This is a ridiculous and unbelievably intellectually dishonest argument.

You’re saying that unless any proposed regulation of guns in this nation can guarantee, absolutely, that it will prevent any killing, ever again, it can’t be done and isn’t just or acceptable.

It’s just another deflection. Another stall. Another lie so that this nation can indulge in its sick fascination with killing tools.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess there are many ways to suppress the explosive power of ammonium nitrate. A quick research suggests that this can be called a desensitizer. I found a 1988 patent (USP 4701227) and a paper on using coal ash (http://www.flyash.info/2009/078-taulbee2009.pdf). I have no idea what the best or most cost effective way to do this is, but it most certainly exists.

I really can’t picture putting coal ash on farm fields without detrimental effects. Nitrate is used up within 90 days of application, but other elements of coal ash persist, including potassium and mercury. Potassium can eventually reach harmful levels if applied frequently, because it leaches calcium in the body. Mercury, of course, is poisonous.

And the articles I have read talk about the necessity of coating the nitrate particles with the ash. Ammonium nitrate particles are pretty small; a little bigger than BBs. There is no way the cost wouldn’t be increased.

 

[Jig_Saw]

here is no clear risk from mere gun owners. There is no more risk than from owners of frying pans. Just today I saw a story about a woman who killed a man with a frying pan. So we should, under your reasoning, all have liability insurance to cover any damage we could possibly cause.

Sure there is. Let’s look at data:

Murder weapons in 2012:

1. Firearms (8855)
2. Knives (1589)
3. Personal Weapons (678)
4. Blunt Objects (518)
5. Strangulation (194)
6. Fire (84)
7. Narcotic (35)
8. Drowning (13)
9. Poison (12)
10. Explosions (8)

So murder by firearm is about 16x more prevalent than by blunt object (which I suppose a frying pan would be). Given that more households have frying pans, I feel pretty safe saying that there is much less risk from owners of frying pans.

Gun owners should bare the cost of their ownership and not put that burden on the rest of society. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Ridgerunner]

At least with ammonium nitrate we do not have a powerful lobby of explosive collectors that insist on their right to their hobby of collecting explosives.

Ammonium nitrate has a potentially massive supporting constituency. Any farmer who doesn’t use anhydrous ammonia (which is extremely dangerous) uses ammonium nitrate. Most lawn fertilizer that you buy at Walmart or Lowe’s contains it. Your favorite greenhouse uses it. Your city parks use it. Your golf courses use a lot of it.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I really can’t picture putting coal ash on farm fields without detrimental effects. Nitrate is used up within 90 days of application, but other elements of coal ash persist, including potassium and mercury. Potassium can eventually reach harmful levels if applied frequently, because it leaches calcium in the body. Mercury, of course, is poisonous.

And the articles I have read talk about the necessity of coating the nitrate particles with the ash. Ammonium nitrate particles are pretty small; a little bigger than BBs. There is no way the cost wouldn’t be increased.

I don’t know diddley-squat about the positives and negatives of adding any substance to ammonium nitrate to lessen its explosive potential, but I simply provided you with information that it exists. If ammonium nitrate being used as a method of mass murder as often as firearms are, we would be having serious conversations about adding these substances. As I mentioned already, this came up as a possibility after the Oklahoma City bombing. But it hasn’t really happened that often and hence we haven’t pursued the possibilities. On the other hand, mass shootings are now a pretty regular occurrence in the US, so it is reasonable to look at some way to lessen them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So murder by firearm is about 16x more prevalent than by blunt object (which I suppose a frying pan would be). Given that more households have frying pans, I feel pretty safe saying that there is much less risk from owners of frying pans.

Gun owners should bare the cost of their ownership and not put that burden on the rest of society. Why is that so hard to understand?

So there are about 1/5 as many murders by knife as by guns. Do knife owners need to insure against murderous use of their knives too, or is the requirement only for owners of guns?

But in truth I still question whether insurers would insure against the intentional use of a firearm or any other weapon. Accidental, probably so. But intentional? I would need to see some evidence such insurance would even be available.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know diddley-squat about the positives and negatives of adding any substance to ammonium nitrate to lessen its explosive potential, but I simply provided you with information that it exists. If ammonium nitrate being used as a method of mass murder as often as firearms are, we would be having serious conversations about adding these substances. As I mentioned already, this came up as a possibility after the Oklahoma City bombing. But it hasn’t really happened that often and hence we haven’t pursued the possibilities. On the other hand, mass shootings are now a pretty regular occurrence in the US, so it is reasonable to look at some way to lessen them.

Ban guns and I would bet dollars against donuts that the bombings will increase. Keep in mind that Paddock had some ammonium nitrate in his possession. The Tsarnaevs didn’t use ammonium nitrate, they used powder from fireworks. But they still used a bomb notwithstanding that they had guns. They chose a bomb because it can be much deadlier than firearms in a crowd.

Do you honestly think Paddock would not have engaged in mass killing if he didn’t have the guns he had, when he apparently knew all about ammonium nitrate and had some of it for perhaps some later killing?

 

[Jig_Saw]

So there are about 1/5 as many murders by knife as by guns. Do knife owners need to insure against murderous use of their knives too, or is the requirement only for owners of guns?

But in truth I still question whether insurers would insure against the intentional use of a firearm or any other weapon. Accidental, probably so. But intentional? I would need to see some evidence such insurance would even be available.

I’d be curious of what kind of knives are we talking about, but it isn’t unreasonable that some more regulations are needed there too. But I was trained as an engineer and you are taught to tackle the largest problem. Since 2/3rd of the murders are committed by firearms and about 10% are committed by knives, I would put my energy towards firearms first. Bad engineers would try to tackle knives or get confused about which is more important.

As far as insurance goes, as far as I’m concerned, I have a right to my property and my life. I see no reason why someone else exercising what their right to bear arms takes away from my right to property, but without insurance being in place, that is exactly what is happening. The costs of the Las Vegas tragedy, which will go on for the rest of my life and well after my death will be on me as a taxpayer and my children and possibly my grandchildren. It’s time that gun owners take responsibility for their ownership instead of passing it onto society at large.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Ban guns and I would bet dollars against donuts that the bombings will increase. Keep in mind that Paddock had some ammonium nitrate in his possession. The Tsarnaevs didn’t use ammonium nitrate, they used powder from fireworks. But they still used a bomb notwithstanding that they had guns. They chose a bomb because it can be much deadlier than firearms in a crowd.

Do you honestly think Paddock would not have engaged in mass killing if he didn’t have the guns he had, when he apparently knew all about ammonium nitrate and had some of it for perhaps some later killing?

Of course, he didn’t use the ammonium nitrate and, as I’ve said a few times today, if ammonium nitrate did become a serious risk to the public health through bombings, we would be having serious conversations about adding something to it to make it less explosive.

Again, I don’t know why you are so resistant to the idea that I have a right to property and that is not trumped by someone’s second amendment rights. If someone owns a gun, they must bare the financial responsibility of ownership and not pass that onto the rest of society.

 

[exnihilo]

This is the very type of language that does not good. No one asks questions like this except to make a point. Cities will build a fire station, have a police department and set traffic laws. It would be absurd to expect otherwise because the cannot guarantee there will be no one killed in fires, or by crime, or in traffic accidents. We have drug laws that say you cannot snort PCP. Yet there is no guarantee that no one who snorts PCP won’t kill anyone.

The one specific I think we could have is to stop the legal reselling and trading of firearms.

If you are saying we need to have specific laws to stop this specific act from ever happening again then a guarantee makes sense. In this case we have no reason to think this guy bought guns from anyone other than a dealer. So making reselling firearms illegal wouldn’t make a difference.

You’re saying that unless any proposed regulation of guns in this nation can guarantee, absolutely, that it will prevent any killing, ever again, it can’t be done and isn’t just or acceptable.

Yes. If you suggest a solution to a problem it has to actually solve the problem.

So murder by firearm is about 16x more prevalent than by blunt object (which I suppose a frying pan would be). Given that more households have frying pans, I feel pretty safe saying that there is much less risk from owners of frying pans.

Actually this is America. Lots of homes have lots of guns. Many homes have more guns than frying pans. Guns are a good tool for killing. That is why they are chosen. Take them away and knife and frying pan attacks go up.

I’d venture to say your relative feeling of safety has nothing to do with the number of guns or frying pans in a house but due to the nature of the occupants. Do you get an unsafe feeling around police?

 

[Inisfallen]

Yes. If you suggest a solution to a problem it has to actually solve the problem.

Nonsense (again, I can think of a better word). So you’re against laws prohibiting murder, and abortion, and theft, and domestic violence, and a host of other evils? Because I haven’t noticed that those laws are perfectly effective. But by your standard, we might as well not have such laws. In fact, we probably shouldn’t.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t have any delusions that laws against murder stop murder. Laws against murder exist for justice. You are suggesting vague laws to stop something from happening. It is completely different.

 

[ucfengr]

Why do all your “solutions” focus make it harder on the law abiding and do nothing to the criminal?

 

[Inisfallen]

Why do all your “solutions” focus make it harder on the law abiding and do nothing to the criminal?

I’m very much in favor of locking up criminals. If there had been a law prohibiting the possession of bump stocks, or of accumulating deranged quantities of firearms, we could have locked up this lunatic in Las Vegas and prevented this tragedy.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Because people who routinely break the law will be stopped by an additional law prohibiting the transfer of firearms. Remind me how well the War on Drugs is working again? How about Prohibition?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’d be curious of what kind of knives are we talking about, but it isn’t unreasonable that some more regulations are needed there too. But I was trained as an engineer and you are taught to tackle the largest problem. Since 2/3rd of the murders are committed by firearms and about 10% are committed by knives, I would put my energy towards firearms first. Bad engineers would try to tackle knives or get confused about which is more important.

As far as insurance goes, as far as I’m concerned, I have a right to my property and my life. I see no reason why someone else exercising what their right to bear arms takes away from my right to property, but without insurance being in place, that is exactly what is happening. The costs of the Las Vegas tragedy, which will go on for the rest of my life and well after my death will be on me as a taxpayer and my children and possibly my grandchildren. It’s time that gun owners take responsibility for their ownership instead of passing it onto society at large.

Actually, the numbers provided above show knives at about 17%, but whatever. Engineer or not, the principle is the thing. If you’re going to require gun owners to somehow obtain insurance that covers the victims of gun violence you can’t leave out knives just because their percentage is smaller. You either believe in your principle or you don’t. If you leave out knives, it shows that the principle you enunciate is not your concern, it’s just that you don’t like people having guns. That’s different, and you ought to speak your real mind about it.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Actually this is America. Lots of homes have lots of guns. Many homes have more guns than frying pans. Guns are a good tool for killing. That is why they are chosen. Take them away and knife and frying pan attacks go up.

I’d venture to say your relative feeling of safety has nothing to do with the number of guns or frying pans in a house but due to the nature of the occupants. Do you get an unsafe feeling around police?

Really? Many more homes have guns than frying pans? That explains why the gun to frying pan ratio of murders is about 4000:1 then. Seriously, this is a very weak argument. Guns are the weapon of choice in 2/3rd of the murders and gun owners should not pass on the costs of ownership to society at large, but take on its burden themselves. I have a right to property that is being taken away by gun owners claiming to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.