Las Vegas mass shooting

[Landlord]

12 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

In my opinion, anyone who wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, are functionally trying to disarm the citizenry....I'm sure you disagree

 

 

But since that wouldn't include banning pistols/rifles/etc., your opinion is wrong.

[Saunders]

18 minutes ago, commando said:

IMHO semi autos are ok.    but fully auto and the parts to change semi auto to full auto are not ok.   and clips should be limited to something like 10.   just a way to somehow limit just how much damage a crazy can do.....and still allow a reasonable gun for hunting and perhaps self defense purposes if needed.   30 round clips are just to big IMO

Full auto is effectively illegall if you’re a citizen. Magazine/clip bans are practically useless because they’re easy to make, especially if you have a 3D printer.

 

From what I’ve gathered, the guy planned this out way in advance, booked the hotel 10 months ago, brought multiple guns so he didn’t have to reload,  and rigged his guns with a hand crank that made them like a make-shift Gatling gun. They were, for all intents and purposes, illegal. 

[Dbqgolfer]

17 minutes ago, Enhance said:

That's what most people were discussing in this thread before you turned it into a diatribe on 'disarming the populace.'

 

If stricter gun laws could save just one life, isn't that worth it? At the very least, isn't it worth government funded research into gun violence? The reason it doesn't happen is because the NRA and gun activists know exactly what would happen - stricter gun laws. Those opposed to at least seriously vetting the situation are saying they're comfortable with events like today.

 

We see an illness, we research it, we develop methods to attack it and we carry out those methods. Gun violence is apparently it's own special bird devoid of this treatement.

You are starting with the pressumption that stricter gun laws in American would save more lives than it ends....I'm not sure that's the case.  Two books written by John Lott, Jr. "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias against Guns" would certainly argue against your presumption.  Admittedly, the books were written in the early 2000's, so not the most up to date stats.

[Saunders]

Also, let’s strive to keep this clean ya’ll. Emotions are high, but there is zero reason to make this personal and go after the poster. That’s not how we do things here.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

You are starting with the pressumption that stricter gun laws in American would save more lives than it ends....I'm not sure that's the case.  Two books written by John Lott, Jr. "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias against Guns" would certainly argue against your presumption.  Admittedly, the books were written in the early 2000's, so not the most up to date stats.

I think you missed a key part of my post: at the very least, isn't it worth government funded research into gun violence? We pay government dollars to research thousands of things every year but we can't research gun violence. Guns killed more than 15,000 people in the U.S. in 2016. It's depraved.

 

Admittedly, I do believe stricter gun laws would result in fewer deaths, particularly if we could also limit the overall number of guns on the streets. The U.S. has roughly 4.5 percent of the worlds population, but more than half of all civilian owned guns. Most research shows states with more guns have more gun deaths. And although Chicago is a popular punching bag for gun activists because of its gun violence, most research shows states with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun deaths.

 

But, even if someone wants to believe stricter gun laws wouldn't result in fewer deaths (despite the mountains of evidence around the world to contradict this mindset) there's just no legitimate argument for being against government funded gun violence research. Absolutely none unless, of course, events like the last 24 hours are acceptable.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Personally, I think people should have the right to have a 30 round clip.  The last thing I would want to do is take another life; so if someone is breaking into my home to do harm to my family, I may want to squeeze off 5 or 6 warning shots to give them a chance to rethink their decision, and still have some rounds left in case they don't.

Look, I'm opposed to a gun ban, but how many rounds do you need? If you need 24+ rounds, heck if you need 6+ rounds to fend off intruders, then you shouldn't have a gun. And like someone else mentioned, you shouldn't just "squeeze off 5 or 6 warning shots" - there's a reasonable chance you just shot your family or neighbors.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

4 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Personally, I think people should have the right to have a 30 round clip.  The last thing I would want to do is take another life; so if someone is breaking into my home to do harm to my family, I may want to squeeze off 5 or 6 warning shots to give them a chance to rethink their decision, and still have some rounds left in case they don't.

I personally don't think a rifle is a great home defense weapon there are several reasons for that, but to me the best home defense option is the good old shotgun. Just operating the action alone will make a bad guy rethink his decision. Squeezing of 5 or 6 warning shots probably isn't going to happen if we're being honest. If it's a home invasion in the middle of the night by the time you realize what's going on you either aren't getting to your gun or you are only getting off a few shots at the bad guys. 

[Michiganball]

9 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

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

That's some cherry picked propaganda "history". None of those countries had an actual gun culture, any weapons there were primary used for hunting and they sure as hell were not assault rifles. In Germany the law was easily bypassed and there was absolutely no desire to get rid of Nazis, after all they were voted in and fully supported by the population. resistance was not muted by the lack of weapons(which would be useless anyway) but by desire to follow hitler...to hell.

 

On the other hand the communist countries simply got rid of guns(not all guns, you could still hunt) for the same reasons as virtually all western countries, easier to deal with criminals and general loonies They did not fear Vania, Raul or Young Ho with his pistol or cheap rifle going against their T-50 tanks.

Today population having guns has no relevance on freedom what so ever, any resisting would be swatted away with minimal effort, a military drone can end a conversation before you knew you were having one. In the end we are far from the age of the musket and it's dated armed militia ideals.

 

[Saunders]

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Look, I'm opposed to a gun ban, but how many rounds do you need? If you need 24+ rounds, heck if you need 6+ rounds to fend off intruders, then you shouldn't have a gun. And like someone else mentioned, you shouldn't just "squeeze off 5 or 6 warning shots" - there's a reasonable chance you just shot your family or neighbors.

I just wanted to chime in that bullets don't work like the movies. Even if you're able to hit your target with all 6 rounds, that's not a guarantee to stop them. And then there's theproblem of hitting a moving target in a high stress situation. It's hard. Like, really hard. I've taken a "stress shooting" class, and holy crap it's an eye opener. I remember that our instructor (former army, current country sherrif/swat) told us of a study that showed in most police shootings, the average distance was under 20 feet, and they were averaging like a 15% or lower hit rate.

 

Also, they teach you that you don't pull a firearm unless you absolutely have to, and that you keep firing until your attacker is on the ground. Also, warning shots are a no-no, because you're likely to make your situation worse, or hit a non hostile target/object.

[knapplc]

EDIT - he was responding to this from the Trump Administration. The new format doesn't allow secondary tweet embedding, so it's a bit confusing.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Goat raises a couple of interesting points.

 

1)  The "timing" argument is a cheap trick to push the argument off in perpetuity.  It's inherently dishonest, and not intended to open a realistic dialogue.

 

2)  The pro-gun crowd will eventually have to come to the table. There are more of us not in that crowd, and sooner or later those of us for whom guns aren't a hobby will get fed up enough to force the debate. It is in the best interest of pro-gun folks to start the dialogue now, with honest intentions and a willingness to concede position, or there will come a time when they have no position to concede. 

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

So we only have 1 picture of shooter (with eyes closed). He was a multi millionaire, high roller etc and we only have 1 single picture of him in all of the internet.....seems plausible

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, saunders45 said:

I just wanted to chime in that bullets don't work like the movies. Even if you're able to hit your target with all 6 rounds, that's not a guarantee to stop them. And then there's theproblem of hitting a moving target in a high stress situation. It's hard. Like, really hard. I've taken a "stress shooting" class, and holy crap it's an eye opener. I remember that our instructor (former army, current country sherrif/swat) told us of a study that showed in most police shootings, the average distance was under 20 feet, and they were averaging like a 15% or lower hit rate.

 

Also, they teach you that you don't pull a firearm unless you absolutely have to, and that you keep firing until your attacker is on the ground. Also, warning shots are a no-no, because you're likely to make your situation worse, or hit a non hostile target/object.

Don't you also have to abide by a 'run, hide, fight' mechanic in Nebraska? I.e. if an intruder enters your home you have to do everything in your power to get away from the house and out of the situation and only if you're trapped you're allowed to shoot?

[TGHusker]

https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Mass-Murder-in-Las-Vegas/851098107399788721.html

 

I refuse to buy what Bill O'Reilly is selling here.  Mass murder is not the price of freedom. A warped mind would claim that is the only alternative. Are we really free if we live in fear of mass murder??  No. 

 

 

Quote:

Once again, the big downside of American freedom is on gruesome display.  A psychotic gunman in Las Vegas has committed the worst mass murder in U. S. history. 

64-year-old Stephen Paddock, who lived in Nevada, began firing from a hotel window about 10pm Pacific time last night.  His targets were folks attending a music festival below him.  When it was all over, more than 50 human beings lay dead, 400 plus wounded.  Paddock apparently killed himself as police closed in on him. 

The murderer had a number of deadly weapons in his room and you can count on the gun control debate to ramp up.   (TG: I hope so.)

But having covered scores of gun-related crimes over the years, I can tell you that government restrictions will not stop psychopaths from harming people. 

They will find a way. 

Public safety demands logical gun laws but the issue is so polarizing and emotional that little will be accomplished as there is no common ground. (TG: Little can be done by those with zero vision, zero leadership, zero passion.  So in O'Reilly's world we are to just accept the status quo.  That is defeatism at its worse.  And he gets paid for this 'wisdom'.  Where are the leaders in this debate willing to pay the political price to step forward??)

The NRA and its supporters want easy access to weapons, while the left wants them banned. 

This is the price of freedom.  Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are.

The Second Amendment is clear that Americans have a right to arm themselves for protection.  Even the loons.  (TG: Loons should never be allowed to buy guns. This guy had 23 guns in the hotel room.  How does that happen.  Gun shops say he purchased them legally.  He may have gotten some illegally. )

[Saunders]

20 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Don't you also have to abide by a 'run, hide, fight' mechanic in Nebraska? I.e. if an intruder enters your home you have to do everything in your power to get away from the house and out of the situation and only if you're trapped you're allowed to shoot?

I don’t know, as I’m in Florida. My understanding is that most states have some form of a castle doctrine, so once an intruder is in your house, all bets are off. But, I honestly haven’t researched it outside of my own state.

[Fru]

If disarming the citizenry meant people could feel more comfortable going to concerts, movies, church, school or the mall, then sign me up.