Las Vegas shooting

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by IdoL, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. I'm not so sure about that, given the crowd and time he was able to fire for had he used a bolt action rifle with much more powerful rounds suited to longer ranges it may have actually been worse. Despite all his excessive planning and resources the result wasn't much different to similar attacks where only one mundane rifle or a vehicle were used.
  2. He was a pilot and therefore passed a psych evaluation. People who are all, "hurrr durrr crazy ppl get guns, must stop them, durrrrr", apparently think everyone with a mental illness is an obvious window licking loon. Like I said, this person was going to find a way to kill a lot of people. Honestly from what I've read, he had a pretty decent life making a crap ton of money having fun. He didn't seem to be politically or religiously motivated. It almost seems like Manchurian Candidate kind of stuff. Time for the tin foil.

    Just shows having a shit load of guns doesn't make one kill. As pointed out, we have a shit ton of guns. If having a shit ton of guns made people kill, this would happen weekly.
  3. This guy was far from middle class. And for guns like you cry about, it takes more than a few hundred dollars.
  4. Man you are on fire! You are correct again, right on the money. I've been to the Smith&Wesson factory, loads of guns. Didn't see anyone killing anyone. This is what liberals need to understand.

    The numbers show that the US has more mass homicides, all of them caused by men with firearms, than the rest of the world. But what the lamestream media fails to mention is how many mass murders the US does not have, because of guns.

    Think about it. A lot of mass murders didn't happen in the first place because the perpetrator thought "wait, the US has heaps of guns and some of my victims might try to kill me before I have the chance to commit suicide, like every other mass murderer does" and then they don't carry the terrible act because they want to live longer for 10 more minutes. Guns keep the US safe, fact. But the left leaning snowflakes don't tell us that.
    SEABEE likes this.
  5. Yep, I heard it takes something like a few thousand. This AR-15 costs 700 dollars, and in order to buy an overkill amount of them, say 20 like the Las Vegas shooter, the person would have to have 14,000 dollars available.

    Now, who the hell has this amount of money in the richest economy of the world? Specially one where getting a loan is pretty straight forward?

    That's crazy, only super rich people can buy assault rifles. I say this was an operation conducted by a very wealthy and well-funded organization. I say North Korea, or even a false flag operation.
  6. The stuff he had wasn't cheap, probably $100k minimum in that room. On the other hand he wasn't very effective, the attack in norway killed more as did the bataclan attack. America does seem to have more mass shootings but the amount of people killed doesn't really appear to be impacted much. I would almost be inclined to say the tacticool shit they buy in america ends up reducing the damage, the guy who shot up a movie theater had his huge drum mag jam, las vegas guy probably would have hit more people carefully firing in semiautomatic. The military uses full auto for suppressing fire, there's not much reason to spray at long range if no one is shooting back.
  7. Bottom line is that illegalizing guns would decrease mass shootings and homicides. There's no arguing against that.
    SEABEE likes this.
  8. Mexico has very strict gun laws. That's not helping them much. That genie is far out of the bottle.
    And, you're right, mass shootings like this would turn into mass bombings/car plowing/arson. No amount of bans would have kept this guy from killing as many as he could.

    You're cute when you're emotional.
  9. What we're (Sick Boy and I) saying is that with America's gun crime statistics, while illegalizing guns won't solve everything, it would definitely help decreasing deaths.
    SEABEE likes this.
  10. Violence is deeply rooted in USA's values, and so are guns. The problem is more complex and requires more effort than removing all guns from the population.
    Robot Jim, Sick Boy and SEABEE like this.
  11. It would be a good start, though.
    Sick Boy and SEABEE like this.
  12. And what I've been saying, and what this thread is about, it won't stop crazy people from killing a lot of people.
  13. Except many people who do the bad things are the ones who aren't allowed to have guns anyway. You think gangs are going to just hand over their guns and stop using them for crimes?
  14. That's the liberal mentality. Australia, the UK and other developed nations reduced their mass deaths and gun violence when they passed more restrictive guns laws, but they are weird.

    First of all, they are very different from the US. They are as rich as America, as developed, share the same language, values and religion, but they are not comparable. Let's compare apples with oranges here: the US vs. Mexico and Honduras. Higher poverty, more endemic crime, not the same values and more corrupt and inefficient governments. There you can see that guns are safe.

    It's called logic, you know.
    SEABEE likes this.
  15. Damn straight. If you look at the list of mass homicides in the US, you'll see that the shooter is always a gang member. This guy in Las Vegas, he was probably associated with a gang of Mexican retirees. Look at the places where these mass shootings happen: the Las Vegas strip, the Virginia Tech campus, Santa Barbara, a middle school, airports, offices. All ghettos, all hot bed of gang activity.
    SEABEE likes this.
  16. If every concert goer was armed this wouldnt have happened
    SEABEE likes this.
  17. While you are 99.9% correct (I don't think the government needs to remove ALL guns), doing nothing and adopting a mentality of defeat certainly will not help the current situation.

    Keep small guns and personal defense guns legal -- a fucking military assault rifle certainly isn't a personal defense item. Keep hunting rifles legal. Strictly limit who can buy guns and how many they can have. Having 40 rifles will not make your penis larger, have just one small revolver. Start saying no more vigorously to people who apply. Buy guns back at market price (or above market price even?).

    Shit, don't listen to me. Listen to Australia. In 1996 they passed stricter gun laws. In the 18 years before that they had 13 (THIRTEEN) mass shooting, almost as bad as the US. In the 18 years after the law was passed, they had 0 (ZERO) mass shootings. Numbers of general gun violence and suicides also decreased.
    SEABEE likes this.
  18. This argument is frustrating for a number of reasons, not the least of which because it only comes up after a mass shooting, which is somewhat like basing fiscal policy based on the behavior lottery winners. Attack in Nice or otherwise, France is still a safer country than the United States, and reiterating that mass murders occur in safe countries does not alter the fact that they are safe countries. This massacre was ultimately a tragedy, yes, but aiming to prevent tragedies just like this one might not be the best way to reduce the overall rate of violence in a country. Nearly every developed nation has lower rates of violence than the United States, and it's worth actually considering why that is instead of just dismissing it with the sublime point that people in France also own trucks.

    Similarly, pointing out that many European countries have both lower rates of violence and lower rates of gun ownership assumes that one correlator (which doesn't even happen to be the best one) is the most important. Other major correlators when you compare those two groups? Lower rates of non-mortgage debt, higher mortgage debt, stronger welfare states, better educational outcomes, lower stigma associated with receiving outside help, and higher status of women. All or none of these may contribute just as much. (As a mild tangent, know what the strongest indicator for violence against women is? Female literacy rate. They go together because they share a cause, not because one causes the other.) Depending on how you measure gun ownership (guns per capita versus gun owners as a fraction of the population), you also get hit with some major outliers: France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland all have similar fractions of households with firearms (on the order of ~30%). In fact, whereas the small and cheap .22LR cartridge is the most popular round throughout North America, it's actually less so in Canada; centerfire semi-automatic rifles, in the same class as the AR-15, make up a bigger fraction of weapons in Canada, and the distribution of cartridges tends further towards more powerful rounds. Maybe that's why the discussion stays on guns; if you're pro-2nd Amendment, there are some reasonable arguments why gun control isn't a golden ticket, so you keep the conversation there because if moves away from guns then we'll have to start talking about welfare.

    A lot of the focus in these debates is about semi-automatic rifles, because of their use in major media-focused violence like the above. However, the majority of gun violence in the United States (especially if you include suicides and other self-harm) is carried out with pistols. In all of the countries I listed above, semi-automatic rifles are among the easiest weapons to obtain; weapons in a similar class to the AR-15, like the Ruger Mini and Norinco 97, are the least restricted weapons in Canada. However, whereas in Canada the fraction of gun owners who possess a pistol is on the order of 1-in-10, in the United States that fraction is 2-in-3. And on the topic of self-harm, whereas you can debate the merits of gun control on interpersonal violence, reducing gun ownership absolutely reduce rates of self-harm, especially among men (two thirds of all gun deaths are male suicides, you may know).

    I think America's culture of 'rugged independence' gets an unfair pass in discussions like this. It has its fingers in every note that I touched on above: from the idea that the 2nd Amendment is so critical because it 'protects the Republic' from malevolent forces, to negative views of welfare because of the notion that your well-being is always a personal responsibility, to the perspective of firearms as a bulwark against outside forces as opposed to a tool for sport (even though, as above, by owning a gun a person becomes much more likely to kill themselves with it than ever require it in a firefight). It even snakes its way into the mental-health issue and turns it into a scapegoat, bending it into an issue of someone battling a readily-diagnosable name-brand mental issue within the standard psychiatric system, and how to stop people like this from accessing weapons. Most mental breaks that result in major violence are acute, not chronic: losing a job, a failed marriage, major debt or depression, drug or alcohol abuse can all trigger these, and they'll frequently only occur years after the possibility of a background check of psych evaluation. The ability to walk into a social services building, a hospital, or a food bank and ask for help instead of the move to violence is as much a personal decision as it is cultural, and America has (among other things) a culture problem.
  19. Assault rifles are effectively illegal in the US, due to restrictions on their sale, although I would be happy to see those clauses become more strict (this applies to all automatic and select-fire weapons, so that also, needless to say, includes battle rifles and machine guns). I think it would be correct to re-classify high-rate-of-fire conversions, like trigger cranks and bump stocks, as a de facto conversion of the rifle to automatic (which is also illegal, over and above the ownership of such a weapon) even if the trigger has to be depressed every time a round is cycled.

    However, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle and is in the same technical class as most hunting rifles: a centerfire semi-automatic rifle. Banning it, while keeping 'hunting rifles' legal, means either restricting it by name, or passing restrictions on aesthetic, non-technical grounds (like pistol grips, accessory rails, or the color black). For instance, both of the weapons below are variants of the Ruger Mini-14, and share the exact same specifications, capabilities, and mechanical mechanisms of action:
    Due to its popularity in service-rifle competitions, especially among veterans and ex-police, banning the AR-15 by name would also be counterproductive as it punishes the proper use of weapons; it's one of the most popular sporting rifles in the United States, while it is by no means the most popular weapon for interpersonal violence.

    Meanwhile, I completely disagree that 'small weapons' and pistols should be free to own. These should be the most restricted classes of weapons, as personal defense has the lowest utility, and weapons for that purpose have the highest rates of use for violence. That 'small revolver' concerns me a hell of a lot more than a large, awkward, and difficult-to-conceal rifle.
  20. I think the distinction and the regulation of so called "assault rifles" is very important, even if it's just based on cosmetic characteristics. Like I said before, the US fetishizes guns. A person interested in hunting might add one or two accessories to his rifle that will have a practical effect to the act of hunting. But I'd imagine that a genuine hunter, interested in hunting only and not in guns for the sake of guns, wouldn't own an AR-15 that looks like something used by the Navy Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden on night raid.

    The people who own militarized rifles just have fetishes about guns. These fetishes are reinforced by the cultural aspects of the US, and all of the militaristic bend of the entertainment industry with movies, TV series and videogames that glorify guns. If you can reduce the selling volume of these weapons by making them less visually appealing, then profit. I'd assume many current assault rifle owners wouldn't feel compelled to own guns that look like boring, 1800s, wood stock, hunting rifles. I believe that like suicides, a good number of mass murders are caused (or at least potentialized) because the perpetrators feel attracted to guns and have easy access to them-- hence why 98% of mass shootings in America are caused by males.

    As for handguns, ok, I stand corrected. But while small handguns have the potential to be concealed and cause a good amount of death for this reason, I'm not advocating for them to be free for all. Australia strongly restricted them, but you can still own them. I believe they just removed completely the "self defense" excuse to own them, and handgun owners are part of shooting clubs and use them recreationally
  21. his father was a psychopath and wanted by the FBI. kind of an interesting story
  22. boy America is trying though, isnt it?

    we ignore every case study (clearest is australia) and talk about how only the criminals will have guns and other appeals to emotion
    The truth is the gun industry lobby (NRA) like all corporations/industries would suffer mightily. thats a lot of money, which means they will spend a lot of money (on congressmen) to make sure this never becomes an acceptable solution. The gun industry's arguments get spread and become the arguments of the useful genius on the street
    Sick Boy likes this.
  23. mexico is not like the US. compare the US to other developed nations.
  24. so let there be fist fights! let america look like glasgow when the bars close
    death rate still falls precipitously
  25. step 1 remove the population

Share This Page