Las Vegas shooting

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

  1. it makes it much harder for them to be effective at it. a crazy guy with a machete doesnt get 1/10th of the work done that this guy did

    a guy with a truck can do some damage, but bollards are cheap and effective and trucks at least have a purpose outside of killing (transportation)
     
  2. imagining this situation, with a bunch of armed do gooders makes me laugh (cringe)
    there were a ton of reports of multiple shooters and gunmen, many of which were confused concert goers calling the cops to report the presence of the swat team. can you imagine the fucking chaos of a bunch of drunk vegas heros plus law enforcement plus security all pulling their guns out at the same time looking for the shooter? it would be a fucking massacre
     
    Sick Boy likes this.
  3. isnt the only relevant restriction for these rifles magazine capacity? i dont care about restricting aesthetics, though maybe compact stocks and short barrels (anything that makes them more easily concealable) should be controlled

    sorry to respond to like 40 straight posts
     
  4. If you wanted to get really strict, you could ask that long-rifles be manually cycled or limit semi-automatic cycling to rimfire rifles. But I'm not sure what good that will do.

    Many countries have magazine capacity limitations, usually around 5 rounds. Some are less strict, and allow "pinned" magazines (ie: a standard AR mag has a metal pin that limits capacity to five rounds, but is otherwise a normal magazine).
     
  5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-control-after-vegas/?utm_term=.fcc433009557

    I thought this was interesting to hear. He made some points pertaining to what you've said. Plenty of people in his crew had concealed carry licenses but they felt they couldn't use their guns in that scenario. It was felt that they were rendered useless as the events were unfolding - the time during which most supporters of armed civilians would reckon they would happily fight (shoot) back.

    What's the point of carrying a gun if you could mistakenly become a target the moment you draw your weapon?
     
  6. That will maybe greatly reduce large caliber arms sales, since I'd bet that quite a few people buy assault rifles because they are cool and do cool stuff. And by cool I mean they look and do military-like stuff.

    And can't these rifles be converted (albeit in a very afterthought manner) to do full auto firing? And they are legal in many states -- or all of them, even? It was reported that the Las Vegas shooter was using a bump stock. They are more cumbersome than a native full auto gun, but they still do the destruction intended.
     
  7. You're seriously trying to argue gun violence is mostly mass shootings? You're extremely naive.
    The kind of people you listed would do the things they did without a gun. Probably use a truck. Or truck with fertilizer.
     
  8. For times not like that.
     
  9. My mention of Nice, France was not to degrade the safety of France. As I mentioned, it was to point out the difference between mass killings and your average gun violence. This person spent a lot of time and effort into his plan. Had there been no guns, I'm sure he'd have found another way to kill a bunch of people. Especially since they found explosive material in his car and house.
     
  10. Yes, this is exactly what I was saying! Like, no one else in America dies of gunshot wounds outside of mass shootings, obviously!
     
  11. I thought the idea of regulating dangerous items was to reduce the probability of damage, and not to extinguish it altogether, which is impossible.

    Yeah, they could have killed people with trucks or any other mundane and inoffensive object, and some of them would. Others would not. In fact, I would guess the majority would not, since the majority of mass murders in america are mass shootings.

    First, a lot of mass murderers wouldn't have perpetrated their acts if it wasn't for easy access to pretty destructive weaponry to begin with. I can only remember Timothy McVeigh as the only mass murderer who used explosives; all others used guns.

    Secondly, it appears to me that the objective of mass murderers in the US is not to simply kill people, but to kill people by shooting at them. Again, the last mass murder in the US that was not caused by shooting that I can remember was the Oklahoma City bombing more than 20 years ago. Surely, if simply killing people in big numbers was the number one objective of these people, a lot of them would not use guns, but other more destructive methods.

    Mass murdering and gun violence in the US appear to be directly connected to the easy availability of guns and to gun idolization. How else would you explain the US having more mass murders than other similar developed nations?

    The notion of you repeatedly suggesting TRUCKS is very irritating, once I believe everyone else is on the same page and past this argument. Furthermore, it either shows that you don't read stuff or that you don't understand them very deeply.
     
  12. its more about feeling like your jason bourne every second you dont have to use it, then turning into homer simpson as you shoot yourself in the dick fumbling for it

    arming the masses is a stupid idea, it makes fatal conditions too easy to achieve
     
  13. guns are by far the easiest way to achieve this stuff. there are too many guns out there, its too easy for the wrong people to have them.
    a few years ago i was not in favor of gun control, but ive come around. I think every other civilized country has the right idea about this shit.

    https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/
    https://gimletmedia.com/episode/gun-control/
    2 part episode

    basic conclusion of the data that is available (which is obviously imperfect) is that its unclear what effect gun control has on things like crime, since there are a ton of factors. The only thing that is strongly indicated is that when shit goes down, its much more likely to be fatal if guns are around.

    There are 2 common denominators in these increasingly common mass shootings: a crazy person and a gun they shouldnt have access to
    lets attack both of them, the time of firearms being a sacred cow has past. the original reason for the 2nd amendment holds almost no water these days, an armed militia has no shot against the most powerful military in the world by several orders of magnitude
     
  14. You're right that it means they are less creative because of guns. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't kill them another way if the guns weren't available. The Columbine killers even had bombs, they just failed to detonate.

    Are you some sort of truckist? I identify as a F150 you bigot!

    Make no mistake, I'm not saying gun regulations shouldn't be improved. Apparently, gun stores only notify the ATF if more than one pistol is sold on the same transaction. That's just silly. I'm also not saying better gun regs won't stop drunk bro from going to his car, getting his gun, and shooting some guy who was talking to his chick and killing others in his way. I'm saying it won't stop things like this. And it's going to be a pain getting the incredible amount of guns already in circulation.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  15. youre making our argument for us.
    making bombs is infinitely harder than buying a gun from walmart.
     
  16. Sure they are, but then the person would either make sure it worked, or improvise.
    You think the kind of planning this guy did would be like, "lulz can't buy a gun, never mind, gtg"?
    They would just resort to the things people do in other countries.
     
  17. Regardless of your point (which I'll leave you all to argue about), this is just a case of a bad memory. There have been many high profile bombings (the WTC, LaGuardia Airport, several aircraft, the Boston Bombing), and some of the largest mass-murders in US history were acts of arson on nightclubs and similar locations.
     
  18. Great! make it harder.

    YES i absolutely believe that the harder you make it to kill people en masse, the amount of people killed will go down
    I do think there is a relationship, call me crazy
     
  19. Now this is a semantic point, but I think it's a point worth making because there seems to be a linguistic barrier in the gun control discussion. 'Assault rifle' has a very specific definition: a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. Assault rifles, being selective fire (ie: the user can select, at a minimum, between semi-automatic and burst mode fire. Sometimes full-auto is also available depending on the weapon), cannot be bought by civilians in the United States (or practically any country). Looking like an assault rifle does not make a weapon an assault rifle, and if you wish to ban certain aesthetic features like folding stocks, pistol grips, and accessory rails, it is worth maintaining this nomenclature to avoid confusion because assault rifles are already banned through separate mechanisms.

    Second, assault rifles are intermediate caliber, by definition. The 5.56mm NATO round was introduced because the full-size round it replaced, 7.62mm NATO, was too heavy and produced too great a recoil to be effective in modern conflicts. The 7.62 NATO round, and its civilian counterpart the .308 Winchester, is still popular in the civilian market for its ability to hunt large North American game, especially at longer ranges. As such, legislation like the above would likely only affect small and medium-calbre rounds, leaving the largest calibre weapons essentially unaffected.

    Some weapons can be converted to fully-automatic fire more easily than others. The AR-15 and Norinco 97, as semi-automatic derivatives of fully-automatic weapons, can be converted more easily. The Norinco 97, for instance, was briefly banned in Canada when the RCMP discovered a simple modification to allow fully-automatic fire (which the manufacturer was unaware of, and dutifully corrected so that it could go back on sale). Some Glock variants are notoriously straightforward to modify for full-auto (although these are pistols). Converting a semi-automatic weapon to fully-automatic fire is almost universally illegal; it can be done, but usually requires a tremendous amount of paperwork and often a firearms dealer license.

    This is again an area where semantics comes into play. Automatic fire has nothing to do with the rate of fire. If a weapon continues to cycle and fire new rounds for as long as the trigger is depressed, it is an automatic weapon. If a weapon cycles a new round without user intervention but requires the trigger to be released and depressed again for every round fired, it is semi-automatic. If the user has to clear the spent casing and insert a new round through a secondary mechanism other than the trigger, then the weapon is manually-cycled. Bump stocks and trigger cranks subvert this by allowing high rates of fire with semi-automatic weapons. These are generally legal, although I feel they are de facto automatic conversions and should be banned. However, semi-automatic weapons do not just have hunting applications, but also major industrial applications. This is especially true in agriculture, where livestock protection and pest control can be a major concern. So I don't believe that banning semi-automatic weapons to get at odd conversions like bump stocks is the right answer.

    As an aside, in military practice small arms like the M16 (in the AR-15 family) almost never have an option for fully-automatic fire. Recoil control and ammunition expenditure mean you waste ammunition missing your target, and usually these weapons are limited to three-round bursts. Fully automatic fire is usually limited to crew-served weapons and weapons with significant structural support (such as those mounted to vehicles or with the use of bipod support); they are almost impossible to control in hand-held configurations. In several mass shootings, fully-automatic weapons may well have reduced the number of casualties, because it would have been so much more difficult for the perpetrator to aim and fire the weapon. The Last Vegas shooting had an almost ideal scenario where crowd and vantage point meant that the ability to aim the weapon was almost irrelevant relative to rate of fire.
     
    ETB4U and HippoCrushEverything like this.
  20. what do you mean? like for culling wolves from helicopters or something? havent really seen semi auto for hunting
     
  21. Full disclosure: a lot of my family are ranchers in Western Canada. My experience might be limited to this particular industry or location.

    Livestock protection benefits from semi-autos much more than hunting, because often you are shooting at something actively trying to kill your property. This means you have less time to setup a shot, and are therefore more likely to require followup shots. Many predators in farming locations are also smaller than large game animals, and they are typically encountered at closer ranges, so the benefits of the larger calibres typically encountered on bolt-action rifles is mitigated. You can get large-calibre semi autos, like those based on the old M-14 (or Barrett's .50 if you have ten grand lying around), but they're normally more expensive and the ranchers I know are pretty frugal. My family, family friends and neighbors all keep semi-autos in .223 / 5.56 as their ranch rifle. None of them are 'tacticool' black rifles, none have pistol grips or accessory rails, and hell, most of them just have plain-old iron sights. All of them basically look like 'hunting rifles' for a stereotype, with very plain wood, laminate, or polymer stocks. This is actually a common enough case that Ruger markets one of their 5.56 semi autos explicitly as a 'Ranch Rifle'. Semi-auto .22LR rifles are also very useful for pest control, especially with the versatility of rounds like ratshot available, where follow-up shots are also common.

    Hunters that I've ran into seem split between bolt-action and semi-auto. Bolt action is more accurate and very reliable, semi-auto has less recoil and faster follow-up shots. I'm not sure how familiar you are with gun actions or technology, but is it possible you've seen semi-autos in hunting scenarios without realizing it? My dad's old hunting rifle was a Remmington 7400, that basically looked like this (although not nearly as polished, engraved, or pretty):
    [​IMG]
     
  22. I now understand why I had 3 round burst in Black Ops
     
    ETB4U and WhiteChocolateWorld like this.
  23. not super familiar but i like to watch that meat eater show thats on netflix and theyre always using a bolt action, and a single carefully placed shot

    hadnt thought about shooting a coyote or whatever heading for your chickens
     
  24. I googled "livestock protection" expecting results for semi-auto rifles, but I only got results for dogs. And people suggesting the use llamas and donkeys too.

    I'm not a farmer, I don't know farmers, so I'll assume that the use of semi-auto rifles is common (at least in North America). But if you need to lay repeated fire on something coming close to your livestock, aren't there chances that you'll actually kill your livestock instead? And how would farmers deal with predators that attack during the night? I have so many questions.

    Again, I'm not doubting your claims, specially because of your family experience. But holy shit, do I find amusingly intimidating the mental image of Old MacDonald going Full Metal Jacket on a coyote.
     
  25. I wouldn't say harder, just more creative. That many people that close together, fire bombing could have easily taken more out. This guy rented two rooms for two vantage points and had cameras set up to see people coming for him. Determination like that wouldn't be hindered by pesky bump stock bans, which even the NRA is for, ironically.
     

Share This Page