In reply to GameboyRMH :
The musket deal is the dumbest argument of them all. Repeaters have been available for 150+ years. Why do we have a problem now? If we went back to only horse and carriages could you imagine the lives that would be saved from traffic accidents.
mapper said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
The musket deal is the dumbest argument of them all. Repeaters have been available for 150+ years. Why do we have a problem now? If we went back to only horse and carriages could you imagine the lives that would be saved from traffic accidents.
I don't think the increases in rate of fire, reloading speed, and magazine size over the years should be so easily glossed over. The old flintlock musket is just an extreme example.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
Only the last 100 years or so.... Again, it's not the tool.
In reply to KyAllroad :
but it's easier to blame an inanimate object than to admit that there is evil in the world and just some things that you cannot control.
Make no mistake, the topic has never been about the actual victims but about control.
Bobzilla said:In reply to KyAllroad :
but it's easier to blame an inanimate object than to admit that there is evil in the world and just some things that you cannot control.
Make no mistake, the topic has never been about the actual victims but about control.
I don't buy the "things that you cannot control" argument because most of the countries on Earth serve as counterexamples to show that it's false.
I've never been unwilling to admit that there's evil in the world. It's debatable whether we live in a predominantly evil world. Can you admit that in this world containing evil, some inanimate objects have a combination of extremely high danger to others and extremely low utility outside of a warzone, and as such should have their ownership, storage and transport more tightly regulated by the government?
This topic is both about victims and control: exercising control to reduce future victims. I don't see why it's controversial. Look at how carefully cars and even motorcycles are controlled. You probably couldn't even kill 5 people with a motor scooter, yet it's registered to its owner who must pass a course to use it, and must carry insurance for it.
GameboyRMH said:Can you admit that in this world containing evil, some inanimate objects have a combination of extremely high danger to others and extremely low utility outside of a warzone, and as such should have their ownership, storage and transport more tightly regulated by the government?
No.
Also, they are tightly controlled already.
For certain values of "tightly"...we've seen what this level of "tightness" results in.
I think single payer health care insurance with two tier payment makes sense.
If we gonna have pointless arguments, I want in before the lock.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
And not a single person has proposed a single rule/restriction/law which would have solved any of these mass shootings, other than just a magic wand. Most of the time, the weapons were already illegal.
I'll give you this, the dude took advantage of a very grey area with the bump stock modification, but really I can't imagine how you might regulate that, if one were so inclined, one could create such a device at home pretty easily. I have seen people with a camshaft where the trigger goes to do the same thing. The point is that we can make these things illegal, but someone will just whip them up in their garage or buy them from ebay illegally.
To give you a silly example of how regulations attempt to help but in reality end up just being very silly, I will talk about my shotgun. I have one for home defense purposes only. It's shorter than a normal shotgun, which would make it pretty useless for hunting and skeet. It's a very specific length though. The "short" helps get around inside a house, and it also has a "flash suppressor" which really just makes it so you can fire into a wall or a door without causing you to die also.
If it was one inch shorter, it would be a mass-murder inviting death machine - illegal. As is, it's totally fine. Does that make sense?
I have read various people talking about how we should pass laws against flash suppressors, because it might have made it harder to see the dude from the 32nd floor. Not only is is complete bologna, but it would make my shotgun illegal, even though the thing has a useful range of maybe 50 yards.
I'm saying this all to say this: Regulations are not going to solve this. Make every gun illegal, take them all away, and people 3D print them. Take away the 3D printers and people CNC them, they are already doing both. The laws we have now are pretty close to reasonable. Things like this suck, but a knee-jerk regulation isn't going to fix it, unless you have a bright idea that I have not heard before.
For clarity, I do think bump stocks are already illegal, meaning you can buy them but installing them is illegal. I think the same for the cam actuated triggers. I think the same for the modifications to the guns internals, and I support those laws.
New subject. Serious. Were there two shooters? Listen to the audio of this video. It definitely sounds like there are two different sounds. Is it just the same guy switching quickly between different weapons?
https://www.facebook.com/TheMinutemanMilitia/videos/1231207506984513/
The guy had 23 firearms, 12 of which were the same. I have no doubt he was switching weapons AND even firing two at once. High capacity mags, near full auto capability, and firing into a dense crowd does not need to be accurate.
Wonder how much worse it would have been if he had suppressors , which Congress is currently trying to legalize. If they had passed the Bill in June he could have had them. Luckily the Bill was postponed after one of their own members was nearly killed.
Somebody on facebook linked up a truther who was busily asking questions with no answers already. Those vaguely worded things that end with, "What other possible explanation is there?"
There sure could be another shooter, but I bet with the quantity of cameras Vegas hotels have, plus all the cameras the shooter had set up, it won't be a very hard question to answer. Unless you are a conspiracy guy, then the video will just be proof that the Democratic party was in on it.
In reply to NEALSMO :
Easy answer to the suppressor question. The first ten or so shots would have been a little quieter, then the suppressor would blow apart and everything would be exactly the same.
Suppressors are not nearly as quiet and durable as you have been lead to believe.
Has anybody broken down the injured by gunshot wound vs trampling injury? It doesn't change anything, but I can't imagine there aren't a bunch of broken limbs from jumping/climbing/tripping/stomping.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
I don't want to be lumped in with a conspiracy theorist, and I am not looking for someone else to blame, but really it sounds strange. There was a video showing a flash on a much lower floor, but it's just really hard to tell.
I have never shot a full-auto rifle, but I don't think you could fire two at once. It wouldn't be possible to hold onto either one.
With stabilizing bi-pods, sand bags, or just his little "nest" while in prone position I'm sure it wouldn't be hard at all.
This makes sense, but doesn't necessarily explain the sound, though he could just be switching guns often for unknown reasons
http://www.snopes.com/second-gunman-shoot-fourth-floor-mandalay-bay/
In reply to NEALSMO :
ok, that's a reasonable point.
In reply to tuna55 :
I've read several credible reports that he had 2 tripods setup in the room. If you don't have to support the weight of the gun or manage all of the recoil, 2 guns at once seems pretty possible to me.
It's more wishful thinking too. Hate to think there is another sick berkeley participating and still at large.
In reply to STM317 :
Yup, you're right.
Although frankly he would have been more dangerous with a semi then spraying everywhere with two full auto's on bipods, but obviously he was already nuts.
We can debate this forever and never come to an agreement.
(The country, not this board)->Rather than start a realistic conversation about how reduce the possibility of this happening again, the hysterical screeching and self-righteousness on both sides will just further divide the country. I just hope fate/luck/Zeus intervenes and keeps this from happening again.
Driven5 said:An interesting take on gun control:
That's an excellent article.
I have shot full automatic rifles and while it might have been possible to shoot two of them at once shooting two bump stock rifles at once would be nearly impossible.
For a suppressor to work like in the movies the bullet has to be subsonic, otherwise you will hear the sonic boom from the bullet regardless of the suppressor. The rounds he was shooting were not subsonic, so it wouldn't have made any difference even if a hypothetical suppressor could have survived. Shooting subsonic rounds from an AR at that distance it would have been more lethal lobbing glass marbles with a paintball marker, because of the 32 story drop.
You'll need to log in to post.
