# Gun control wouldn't have stopped what happened in Vegas...should we do it anyway? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873 "2017-10-03T15:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/441 "2017-10-10T14:19:24Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Prohibition initially reduced alcohol consumption to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, and even after the bootleggers got into full swing, it was 70%. > > Not everybody uses drugs, the majority don’t on a regular basis. > > Kiddie porn is not commonly viewed or openly available like regular porn is. > > There is less drunk driving than there used to be. > > Most people don’t have explosives lying around. > > All these bans reduced the quantity of the banned item. Bans do work, they just are not absolute. Somewhat repetitive but some of those bans are of things virtually everyone believes are inherently morally wrong, not just wrong because illegal. That’s a very major contrast to guns, or alcohol, drugs or illegal immigration. In those cases govt action constantly swims (or swam) upstream against moral indifference at best among a large segment of the population. Focusing on those more like cases, the ban on alcohol was in total a colossal failure with many bad side effects which persisted after it was recognized as a failure. The ban on illegal drugs is very iffy. When not arguing in favor of gun bans, a lot of people on this board agree. 🙂 The difficulty in controlling illegal immigration is hardly ever mentioned here…because the consensus on a board like this is that nobody is doing anything wrong. Note: the issue isn’t the body count, it’s the widespread perception the thing being banned isn’t wrong. In case of guns there would be in fact a strong feeling of moral necessity to break such a law, stronger than what you see in case of facilitating illegal immigrants now. Again some kind of performance art or signalling, it has to be. I can’t wrap my head around any intelligent person who knows the US thinking a gun ban would be possible here (including the 2nd amendment, not as some holy writ, but the consensus needed to change amendments is part of the highly favorable defensive social/political terrain to prevent any such change). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/442 "2017-10-10T14:33:20Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Have auto insurance companies played a significant political role historically? I don’t know what the analogous advocacy is (safer cars? more restrictions on driver’s licenses), but I don’t think of auto insurance companies (as opposed to health insurance companies) exercising much political might at all. But I’ve really never thought of it. Nope. They use actuaries to figure out the risk and then have cap to limit the liability. Gun insurance would similarly figure out the risk and limit the liability with caps. The premium cost is what would become prohibitive for some poorer people but wealthier folks would be able to have their guns even if they were really shitty risks. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/443 "2017-10-10T14:35:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You proposed UBC, licensing and registration, mandatory safety training upon new purchase with retest provisions. In exchange: > > For UBC - national shall issue and reciprocity and allow them to done via private party access to the NICS database; > For mandatory safety training - no problem - make classes free and have test provisions drafted by the NRA or similar pro-gun group. They run a good safety program already; > For Retest - no problem, no more frequent than once every 10 years and same provisions as above; > For license and registration - make gun ownership a suspect class via constitutional amendment with criminal and civil penalties for misuse of information and no immunity for violators, with greater protection than HIPPA, and institutional liability for violations like Sarbanes Oxley. I’d also want federal pre-emption of all state and local gun laws, and repeal of most existing federal gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/444 "2017-10-10T14:40:25Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > Maybe it would be good to study gun violence with an eye to understanding what is or is not effective at reducing it. To that end, how about starting by repealing the [Dickey Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996))? > > Beyond forcing gun owners to carry insurance (which might be hard to enforce), how about building the negative externalities of gun violence into the cost of guns and/or ammunition with taxes? I know the majority of gun deaths are suicides, but at least 10,000/year are homicides (no idea how many injuries). At perhaps $2 million/life, that’s about $20 billion/year. [This](https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1217/US-gun-industry-is-thriving.-Seven-key-figures/31.8-billion) (5-year-old article from CSMonitor) had a figure for federal background checks of 16.5 million in 2012. So a $1000 tax per gun would nearly cover the annual cost. Of course, that assumes a fairly inelastic demand–presumably that kind of tax would reduce the number of guns sold (or create a black market). Or tax ammunition–I’d even favor a lower or zero tax for ammunition purchased and used at shooting ranges. If corporations and rich individuals can use their market power to increase the reach and volume of their 1st Amendment speech rights, I don’t see why reducing 2nd Amendment exercise through market disincentives should be that problematic. $1000/gun? So a $200 shotgun would now cost $1200? Would I pay this tax only on new guns or can I buy a used gun from my neighbor without paying the tax? If so then you have just given every gun owner something on the order of $1000 per gun they own. And only a very tiny minority of guns used in murder are purchased by the murderer at the gun store. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/445 "2017-10-10T14:45:15Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think one of the problems is that there is no trust or respect on either side of the debate. Because of this we are not doing what we should be doing and people are dying because of it. The anti-gun guys think the gun guys want to distribute assault weapons like condoms. The gun guys think the anti-gun guys want to take all guns away. Period. > > I think the debate needs to focus on combat weapons. A handgun, or a hunting rifle or a target rifle or a shotgun have many legitimate uses. They can be abused and people can die. yes. The numbers though are pretty low. It will be hard to get a dozen people with handguns or hunting rifles. They are going to run away. There is going to be a response. The sad fact is that for better or worse we as a society have come to terms with the concept that the things that we like and find useful can also be dangerous and kill a handful of people. Cars, knives, chainsaws, all kinds of heavy equipment, drunk people, etc etc. > > Assault weapons on the other hand are different. They really don’t have a legitimate use beyond being good at killing large numbers of people. They take the number of potential victims from a handful to a big number. > > So, automatic and assault weapons and those capable of being turned into them need to be banned outright except for military and police. You can’t have hand grenades, land mines, mortars, bazookas or nerve gas, and you shouldn’t be allowed to have military grade weapons that are good for killing masses of people at a time. Our society is not should not be ok with that kind of risk/return the way we should be with cars, handguns, bolt action rifles, etc. > > I think we should cut all the other crap. You want a silencer? Fine with me. You want a handgun? Fine with me? You want a rifle? Fine with me. You better not be a felon, you better have it registered and licensed and renewed, and you need to buy insurance for it the way you do with a car. The risk may be something that is something that is acceptable to society but that doesn’t mean society should pay for it. Your car can kill people. It needs to be insured. Guns are no different. > > I think that’s where we need to go. My problem with gun insurance schemes has always been that you want the run of the gun owner to subsidize the cost of gun violence by criminals. Actuarially, the cost of gun insurance for accidents is incredibly low. I suppose you can interpolate the chances of someone murdering someone and charge them based on their chances of becoming a murderer but this will start to look pretty racist pretty quick. But the big problem is that gun control folks want regular folks to buy insurance that covers the cost of criminal gun violence by others. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/446 "2017-10-10T14:47:36Z")
> [@nearwildheaven](#): > > Whenever people spout the “but then only criminals will have guns” line, I reply, “So, why don’t we just eliminate all laws, because after all, criminals don’t care about them.” :smack: I usually get called a libtard or something along those lines, 'cos after all, aren’t we ammosexuals the safest people on earth? What you’re talking about is a prior restraint. We already have laws against murder. You want to have laws against an inanimate object that someone can use to murder someone else. So the “only criminals can have guns” argument is entirely valid. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/447 "2017-10-10T15:40:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My problem with gun insurance schemes has always been that you want the run of the gun owner to subsidize the cost of gun violence by criminals. Why is that an issue? Many states require all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage that covers accidents caused by drivers without insurance…even though insurance is obviously required of all drivers. Lots of accidents are caused by people speeding / drinking etc - in other words, people breaking the law. Doesn’t negate the need for insurance, does it? Especially since the point is the insurance is often needed for people that -weren’t- breaking the law. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What you’re talking about is a prior restraint. We already have laws against murder. You want to have laws against an inanimate object that someone can use to murder someone else. So the “only criminals can have guns” argument is entirely valid. Yes. Just like we have laws regulating ownership etc. of dangerous chemicals and such. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/448 "2017-10-10T15:53:11Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Many states require all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage that covers accidents caused by drivers without insurance… Cite? I was under the impression that the only insurance required by most states was liability insurance, for the people you might hit and injure, not to protect oneself from uninsured motorists that might hit you. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/449 "2017-10-10T16:04:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? I was under the impression that the only insurance required by most states was liability insurance, for the people you might hit and injure, not to protect oneself from uninsured motorists that might hit you. 22 jurisdictions have [uninsured motorist insurance as a requirement](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-r-0258.htm): > [@](#): > > Twenty two jurisdictions require uninsured motorist coverage (UM): Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. UM compensates policyholders when another driver who is at fault for the accident (1) has no auto liability insurance or (2) is a hit-and-run driver. The bigger issue is that insurance doesn’t typically cover illegal or intentional acts. Also, if you game out how the payments would work the comparisons to insurance make less sense. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/450 "2017-10-10T16:20:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 22 jurisdictions have [uninsured motorist insurance as a requirement](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-r-0258.htm): Thanks. Didn’t know. Side note: Looks like it’s not very common in the western US (Oregon is the only one). ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/451 "2017-10-10T17:05:09Z")
You can make the insurance claims the responsibility of, and payable by, the gun industry, and not consumers. Isn’t this what happens in every other industry in terms of liability? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/452 "2017-10-10T17:15:08Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You can make the insurance claims the responsibility of, and payable by, the gun industry, and not consumers. > > Isn’t this what happens in every other industry in terms of liability? AFAIK, Toyota doesn’t pay out for claims if I hit something / someone with my 4Runner. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/453 "2017-10-10T17:31:41Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Again some kind of performance art or signalling, it has to be. I can’t wrap my head around any intelligent person who knows the US thinking a gun ban would be possible here (including the 2nd amendment, not as some holy writ, but the consensus needed to change amendments is part of the highly favorable defensive social/political terrain to prevent any such change). When I disputed the hyperbolic claim that _no_ bans work, I wasn’t signaling - I really don’t think that bans are utterly ineffective. And I also don’t it’s reasonable to defend a comparison of banning guns to banning alcohol by claiming that guns are super-easy to make and the second they’re generally unavailable everybody and their inbred cousin will be whipping them up in their gun stills in their basement. That’s absurd. _Some_ people would maybe manufacture a handful of guns, and not do much with them lest they get arrested. It would hardly be something done in every third college dormroom. Of course, this is presuming that a full on ban was instituted in the first place. A full-on ban of guns in the USA is vanishingly unlikely, to say the least. And while I certainly wouldn’t _object_ to a full-on ban, it’s not really what I as a liberal am shooting for. My first goal would be to figure out how criminals are getting their hands on them, and crack down on those channels. From what little I hear, this means cracking down on person-to-person sales, which tend to be poorly tracked. Methods of more closely (and permanently) associating a weapon with its original purchaser seem worth looking into too - if you know the police will come for _you_ when your gun is used in a shooting, you might not sell it to some jerk. My second goal would be to crack down on methods of modding guns to fire rapidly. Based on the people who insist that every semiautomatic weapon is actually a machine gun if you’ve also got a belt loop and a paper clip, I’d say we could ban all semi-automatic weapons. This will bother certain hobbyists, and certain terrorists, but I don’t see it being a serious problem for the ‘I want a pistol in my purse’ crowd. My third goal would be, sigh, just accepting that people are going to keep on murdering themselves and their families with their precious handguns. And keeping the things out of my house. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/454 "2017-10-10T17:34:42Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You can make the insurance claims the responsibility of, and payable by, the gun industry, and not consumers. > > Isn’t this what happens in every other industry in terms of liability? No, not even close. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/455 "2017-10-10T17:43:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 22 jurisdictions have [uninsured motorist insurance as a requirement](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-r-0258.htm): > > The bigger issue is that insurance doesn’t typically cover illegal or intentional acts. Also, if you game out how the payments would work the comparisons to insurance make less sense. Not sure here. Are you saying that if I hit someone with my car intentionally, then they would not be covered? Speaking of which, who does pay for medical treatment of gun victims? If a survivor of the LV shooting doesn’t have medical insurance, or even if they do, but can’t afford the deductible, who pays for that? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/456 "2017-10-10T17:52:35Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not sure here. Are you saying that if I hit someone with my car intentionally, then they would not be covered? Laws can vary by state, however typically for vehicular insurance that covers actions of the insured, there would exist exclusions of coverage for intentional acts. You would still be on the hook for damages, however the insurance company can appropriately deny a claim since they are not providing insurance coverage for those things. > [@](#): > > Speaking of which, who does pay for medical treatment of gun victims? If a survivor of the LV shooting doesn’t have medical insurance, or even if they do, but can’t afford the deductible, who pays for that? They could seek civil damages against the perpetrator. He’s dead, though his estate will probably be liquidated I’d imagine. Barring that, they are on their own the same as if they experienced any other injury. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/457 "2017-10-10T18:09:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > AFAIK, Toyota doesn’t pay out for claims if I hit something / someone with my 4Runner. But if a car maker or airbag maker can be sued if they have knowledge that their products are potentially dangerous. Tobacco makers have paid millions to settle claims. If someone has an accident driving your car, you can be held liable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/458 "2017-10-10T18:14:33Z")
The only purpose of "gun insurance’ is to make guns unaffordable. Getting insurance for gun accidents is dirt cheap, and you may already be covered. 300,000,000 guns 10000 murders. It is doubtful that insurance would cover deliberate acts. Even if it did, that idea that 3000 harmless and legal guns owners should have to pay for the actions of one gut is ridiculous, especially as that one guy, being a criminal- doesnt have insurance anyway. Look, every driver has gotten in a few accidents. “Over the course of a typical long, driving lifetime, you should have a total of three to four accidents.” [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/](https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/) But only one gun owner in thousands ever has his gun used in a crime. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/459 "2017-10-10T18:34:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > My second goal would be to crack down on methods of modding guns to fire rapidly. Based on the people who insist that every semiautomatic weapon is actually a machine gun if you’ve also got a belt loop and a paper clip, I’d say we could ban all semi-automatic weapons. This will bother certain hobbyists, and certain terrorists, but I don’t see it being a serious problem for the ‘I want a pistol in my purse’ crowd. Almost all the pistols in purses are semi-autos (or double-action revolvers which function similarly). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873/460 "2017-10-10T18:40:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Almost all the pistols in purses are semi-autos (or double-action revolvers which function similarly). This might shock you, but I’m not really a gun guy. So I have to ask: Can the pistols one finds in purses be modified into fully automatic weapons with a belt loop and a paper clip, or a bump stock, or similar such things? Do the pistols one finds in purses have to be semi-auto (or double-action revolvers which function similarly) to accomplish their purposes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-wouldnt-have-stopped-what-happened-in-vegas-should-we-do-it-anyway/797873.md?page=24)