Las Vegas mass shooting

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, unlfan said:

 

Christianity. Which I admitted several posts ago is an idealogy that has been radicalized to kill people, albeit it far fewer numbers than Islam this century.

 

The answer to this question is not "White" or "being White" as you seem to be arguing.

 

Can you expound upon this a bit? I'm not sure I agree with you.

 

I'm not sure the Bible says being white is superior to any other race. I do know those people use God to talk about protecting their civilization, which is exactly what radical Islamic terrorists do.

[Danny Bateman]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Idiots carrying water is all this is.

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

Oh, I 100% agree with you.

 

But there is no doubt White Supremacy is born out of people perverting Christianity.

 

I think there's an argument that modern day White Supremacists don't really rely on it though.

For example, the ones we saw crawl out of the woodwork in Charlottesville didn't do a whole lot of talking about God. It was just a cultural/ideological thing.

[Landlord]

7 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

Oh, I 100% agree with you.

 

But there is no doubt White Supremacy is born out of people perverting Christianity.

 

 

There are atheist white supremacists.

 

There are not non-white white supremacists.

[Danny Bateman]

8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

There are atheist white supremacists.

 

There are not non-white white supremacists.

 

[Saunders]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The claims that this bill would make mass shooting more deadly are at best, merely speculative. In fact, considering that it seems like the guy was using full auto weapons, they actually would have limited his rate of fire and damage done. They don't work like the movies, but politicians don't know or care. Shocking, I know. It's akin to saying mufflers on cars cause more accidents. Even countries with vastly more strict gun laws don't care about suppressors, and they're aren't treated like taboo.

 

That said, if the Democrats were smart, this could be a way to, in effect, act as a "trade" with the gun lobby to get a national license bill passed. Without a repeal of the 2nd (which I don't see happening), you have to craft a system that actually has a chance of working.

[Danny Bateman]

12 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

The claims that this bill would make mass shooting more deadly are at best, merely speculative. In fact, considering that it seems like the guy was using full auto weapons, they actually would have limited his rate of fire and damage done. They don't work like the movies, but politicians don't know or care. Shocking, I know. It's akin to saying mufflers on cars cause more accidents. Even countries with vastly more strict gun laws don't care about suppressors, and they're aren't treated like taboo.

 

That said, if the Democrats were smart, this could be a way to, in effect, act as a "trade" with the gun lobby to get a national license bill passed. Without a repeal of the 2nd (which I don't see happening), you have to craft a system that actually has a chance of working.

 

What effect would a silencer have had if the guy from last night had one? I can't imagine it would have been better.

[Saunders]

12 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

What effect would a silencer have had if the guy from last night had one? I can't imagine it would have been better.

To make things worse? I honestly don't see how. They aren't movie quiet. You're looking at a -20db or so reduction from 130-140db, so it's still loud as hell. Suppressors act as more of a "don't go instantly deaf" device than "whisper quiet" device.

 

They also don't react well to sustained fire, so he'd have to stop shooting to prevent jamming or having it literally melt on the end of the gun.

[Saunders]

As an addendum to what I've posted above, I've given alot of thought to the issue over the last few years, and I do favor a vastly more strict and streamlined system. Although I’m not in favor of a full ban. I think a national license is a good idea, and it can also clean up some of the useless laws and loopholes, both good and bad.

 

I think the problem is that with most things in politics, and hell, even life, there is no nuance. Everything is either 100% black or white with no room for nuance. We’ve done this to ourselves, and we wonder why there’s no open and honest discussion?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

3 hours ago, saunders45 said:

To make things worse? I honestly don't see how. They aren't movie quiet. You're looking at a -20db or so reduction from 130-140db, so it's still loud as hell. Suppressors act as more of a "don't go instantly deaf" device than "whisper quiet" device.

 

They also don't react well to sustained fire, so he'd have to stop shooting to prevent jamming or having it literally melt on the end of the gun.

From what I understand a silencer slows the feet per second down as well which in reality limits the distance the rifle will shoot. Doesn't mean it would've resulted in less victims, just adding some information there as well. They definitely aren't as quiet as folks think they are in reality. 

[Dbqgolfer]

Disarming the citizenry did wonders for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea etc...

[Landlord]

Just now, Dbqgolfer said:

Disarming the citizenry did wonders for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea etc...

 

Good thing nobody is talking about doing that and also that what you just said makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

As an addendum to what I've posted above, I've given alot of thought to the issue over the last few years, and I do favor a vastly more strict and streamlined system. Although I’m not in favor of a full ban. I think a national license is a good idea, and it can also clean up some of the useless laws and loopholes, both good and bad.

 

I think the problem is that with most things in politics, and hell, even life, there is no nuance. Everything is either 100% black or white with no room for nuance. We’ve done this to ourselves, and we wonder why there’s no open and honest discussion?

 

 

Oh I dont' know, I think part of the reason is because the NRA has made it impossible to study this, and for an entire half of our government to carte blanche reject anything that would go against gun profits. 

[Dbqgolfer]

2 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Good thing nobody is talking about doing that and also that what you just said makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I dont' know, I think part of the reason is because the NRA has made it impossible to study this, and for an entire half of our government to carte blanche reject anything that would go against gun profits. 

Disarming the citizenry is exactly what people are talking about; and if you didn't get my point,  regimes that brutalize/commit mass murder agains all or part of their citizenry, first disarms them.

[Landlord]

1 minute ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Disarming the citizenry is exactly what people are talking about

 

 

[commando]

18 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Disarming the citizenry did wonders for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea etc...

 

you are right.  we need to give tanks, bombers, and missiles to our citizens to keep them well armed.  heck...maybe even some nukes.   we have the right to be fully armed dad gummit.