Vegas mass shooting

[Big Empty]

Damn shame this dude did what he did. I love my guns, but no one on their own should be able to kill 50 and injure 400 people.

[dabom]

injure 400.

[apalisoc_9]

mentally derranged or sick?

[SpursforSix]

mentally derranged or sick?

Just a disproportionate response to New Country.

[Avante]

We are simply too fucked up to own guns anymore. Hell, look how people act here towards each other on a silly messageboard. We are basically assholes and pricks. Time to dump weapons unless ya can prove you need that pistol for home protection. NO MORE RIFLES.....fuck hunting. NO MORE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.....unless a cop/military. Meaning....they aren't made anymore.

Only guns being made are low caliber pistols. (other than weapons for law enforement/military)

We humans can no longer contain out prickness, assholeness, it really has come to that. In my lifetime I've seen a time when you never heard...fuck....on TV, now look at it. We have dropped our standards, have no class anymore.

[Chucho]

I love my dueling pistols. They compliment my dueling gloves so well.

[lebomb]

We are simply too fucked up to own guns anymore. Hell, look how people act here towards each other on a silly messageboard. We are basically assholes and pricks. Time to dump weapons unless ya can prove you need that pistol for home protection. NO MORE RIFLES.....fuck hunting. NO MORE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.....unless a cop/military. Meaning....they aren't made anymore.

Only guns being made are low caliber pistols. (other than weapons for law enforement/military)

We humans can no longer contain out prickness, assholeness, it really has come to that. In my lifetime I've seen a time when you never heard...fuck....on TV, now look at it. We have dropped our standards, have no class anymore.

I have a handgun to protect my family, really do not trust anyone when it comes to keeping them safe. Other than that, I agree with everything you said. :claw

[Avante]

I have a handgun to protect my family, really do not trust anyone when it comes to keeping them safe. Other than that, I agree with everything you said. :claw

Never seen it as bad as it is right now, so many freaks walking this earth today. Time to put gun shops out of business. A person needing a pistol has to deal with the military now. A ton of paperwork will be involved. Anyone found with a rifle/automatic weapon will do time.

[Mitch]

That's why automatic weapons have a soft ban, tbh. There just needs to be a total ban, we don't need automatic weapons for anything practical like defense, hunting or shooting at a range. I wonder if his gun was pre-ban or illegally modified/purchased.

[Pavlov]

That's why automatic weapons have a soft ban, tbh. There just needs to be a total ban, we don't need automatic weapons for anything practical like defense, hunting or shooting at a range. I wonder if his gun was pre-ban or illegally modified/purchased.Pretty sure they were legally modified.

[SnakeBoy]

I think it's been confirmed that he used bump stocks to simulate automatic fire. Legal for now.

[Xevious]

Yeah, it's legal technicality. It gives you the ability to fire semi-auto rifles at full-auto speeds. I think at the very least, these types of modifications need to be outlawed.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Never seen it as bad as it is right now, so many freaks walking this earth today. Time to put gun shops out of business. A person needing a pistol has to deal with the military now. A ton of paperwork will be involved. Anyone found with a rifle/automatic weapon will do time.

Yeah let's increase red tape, government bureaucracy and totally wipe out the 2nd Amendment over this sick asshole.

Retarded/overreactive idea.

[monosylab1k]

Yeah let's increase red tape, government bureaucracy and totally wipe out the 2nd Amendment over this sick asshole.

Retarded/overreactive idea.

:lmao

There’s been hundreds of sick assholes that have done this now. Not just one, you fuckin retard.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

:lmao

There’s been hundreds of sick assholes that have done this now. Not just one, you fuckin retard.

in the past what... several decades? Of course. But nobody has killed THIS many people by gunfire in the modern era, and even double-digit casualty shootings are rare in the US. Look it up...

And then you have the black on black shootings in Chicago, which are largely carried out by people wielding illegally obtained guns.

[monosylab1k]

in the past what... several decades? Of course. But nobody has killed THIS many people by gunfire in the modern era, and even double-digit casualty shootings are rare in the US. Look it up...

And then you have the black on black shootings in Chicago, which are largely carried out by people wielding illegally obtained guns.

There’s a mass shooting almost every day in this country. Also, :lmao deflecting to “:cry Chicago :cry”. Chicago doesn’t have the strictest gun laws in the country like the fake news reports.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

There’s a mass shooting almost every day in this country. Also, :lmao deflecting to “:cry Chicago :cry”. Chicago doesn’t have the strictest gun laws in the country like the fake news reports.
There's not a "mass shooting". A domestic homicide and suicide does not qualify.

[Pavlov]

There's not a "mass shooting". A domestic homicide and suicide does not qualify.What's your definition of a mass shooting?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

What's your definition of a mass shooting?

mass -- meaning lots of people targeted, at least a good handful hit.

[Pavlov]

mass -- meaning lots of people targeted, at least a good handful hit.You'll never get statistics using terms like "lots" and "good handful." Too vague.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You'll never get statistics using terms like "lots" and "good handful." Too vague.

It's hard to pinpoint an exact number. Really depends on the situation.

How about, in general, mid-double digits or greater targeted -- or were at least there at the scene of the attack --, any double digits (or very close to it, depending on the situation) hit?

The James Holmes Denver, CO shooting in 2012 qualifies. So does the San Bernardino. An everyday meh "man killed his wife, kids, brother and dog before turning the gun on himself" definitely does not.

[Pavlov]

It's hard to pinpoint an exact number. Really depends on the situation.

How about, in general, mid-double digits or greater targeted -- or were at least there at the scene of the attack --, any double digits (or very close to it, depending on the situation) hit?

The James Holmes Denver, CO shooting in 2012 qualifies. So does the San Bernardino. An everyday meh "man killed his wife, kids, brother and dog before turning the gun on himself" definitely does not.Still wishy-washy. I don't know why such situational distinctions need to be made tbh. It's all guns and deaths.

[Avante]

Yeah let's increase red tape, government bureaucracy and totally wipe out the 2nd Amendment over this sick asshole.

Retarded/overreactive idea.

Stupid, why are we going with old ass amendments for a whole other world? Fuck the second amendment hell yes more red tape ya dumb fuck. A man with a job, a home owner, a guy with no record needs a hand gun for protection, ok he can get one. It will take some time however. A guy with a record, in and out of jobs, renter, wants a hand gun.....fuck no. What does he own to protect?

Dude, you're an moron.

[Avante]

Time to change things this is no longer 1776.

A Wyoming rancher who owns cattle, owns property, has a spotless record, actually no record. For a guy like this to purchase a weapon is totally different than some cat in Detroit who washs dishes at Denny's. Yes, who somebody is should be huge in their ability to own any weapon. I'd go with a person has to have at least a 1000 in the bank before they can qualify for gun owner ship.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Stupid, why are we going with old ass amendments for a whole other world? Fuck the second amendment hell yes more red tape ya dumb fuck. A man with a job, a home owner, a guy with no record needs a hand gun for protection, ok he can get one. It will take some time however. A guy with a record, in and out of jobs, renter, wants a hand gun.....fuck no. What does he own to protect?

Dude, you're an moron.
some people have families and can't afford a mortgage? Get a fucking grip

lol @ proposing elitist guidelines for whether you are allowed to defend yourself and your family. Since when did you become communist?

[Avante]

some people have families and can't afford a mortgage? Get a fucking grip

lol @ proposing elitist guidelines for whether you are allowed to defend yourself and your family. Since when did you become communist?

Then they should have got that education, applied themselves, be somebody. Time to take weapons away from fucking losers. Home owners, those who have substance, a different deal.

A guy would need a background check, money in the bank, home owner before applying for a hand gun. Hunting with rifles is over.

YES...no gurantees we won't see a rich, successful person go berserk, but what are the % of that happening when compared to thuggery and losers?

[lebomb]

The most troubling part about this whole thing? Dude bought 33 guns/rifles in 365 days and it didnt raise one red flag. :rolleyes Let see, probably because he was a white middle aged man that appeared to be your everyday normal citizen. I say any purchase of more than 2-3 handguns in a single month should be looked at. AR purchases should cease IMHO. :claw

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Then they should have got that education, applied themselves, be somebody. Time to take weapons away from fucking losers. Home owners, those who have substance, a different deal.

A guy would need a background check, money in the bank, home owner before applying for a hand gun. Hunting with rifles is over.

YES...no gurantees we won't see a rich, successful person go berserk, but what are the % of that happening when compared to thuggery and losers?

who turned this old guy into a leftist?

Home owner... LOL... you claim to hate 1700s rules but let's not forget... in the early decades of US existence, you had to "own property" to vote... meaning upper class white males, usually over 35 only.

And you say hunting with rifles is over? What are we supposed to hunt with? Can't catch a bird out of the sky with a melee weapon.

[Avante]

who turned this old guy into a leftist?

Home owner... LOL... you claim to hate 1700s rules but let's not forget... in the early decades of US existence, you had to "own property" to vote... meaning upper class white males, usually over 35 only.

And you say hunting with rifles is over? What are we supposed to hunt with? Can't catch a bird out of the sky with a melee weapon.

If a person plans on hunting they must submit a form and rent a rifle if his application is oked. Yes, it has come to this.

No more weapons for low rent humans, yep, just that simple. Putting guns in the hands of chronic losers, nope~~~

[UNT Eagles 2016]

If a person plans on hunting they must submit a form and rent a rifle if his application is oked. Yes, it has come to this.

No more weapons for low rent humans, yep, just that simple. Putting guns in the hands of chronic losers, nope~~~
The Vegas perp was rich and a homeowner...

[Avante]

The Vegas perp was rich and a homeowner...

No shit?

Dude, how damn stupid are you? I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about gun violence in general, ok?

Sheesh~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Avante]

Look at all the posters here who get off accusing people of being a sick ass pedo when they know it isn't true, but they get off bugging/pestering. THIS....is the internet, that talking shit in hiding. THIS....is the world we live in today, TONS of assholes out there. Do we really need assholes with guns?

Time to stop letting assholes, idiots owning weapons.

Who you are, is what should determine if you qualify for gun ownership. You have $$$$ in the bank, own property, you are somebody. No problems with the law.

We need to do all we can to make damn sure a weapon isn't in the hands of a malcontent loser, a failure, a problem in society.

YES....there will be someone who fooled us, like this killer***, but it would be a tiny % of those owning weapons.

*** but.....he had a live in girlfriend and was a professional gambler, hmmmmmmm? And as time goes on no telling what we find out.

[Xevious]

The most troubling part about this whole thing? Dude bought 33 guns/rifles in 365 days and it didnt raise one red flag. :rolleyes Let see, probably because he was a white middle aged man that appeared to be your everyday normal citizen. I say any purchase of more than 2-3 handguns in a single month should be looked at. AR purchases should cease IMHO. :claw
It's a gap in the law... race has nothing to do with it. Multiple handgun purchases by the same individual on the same day or consecutive days must be reported - rifle purchases do not (which needs to change obviously).

And while I won't go as far as Avante is - the second amendment is there to stay - I do think AR type guns need to go. They serve no practical hunting or home protection purpose, they're designed to kill people at range and that's all.

[DMC]

The most troubling part about this whole thing? Dude bought 33 guns/rifles in 365 days and it didnt raise one red flag. :rolleyes Let see, probably because he was a white middle aged man that appeared to be your everyday normal citizen. I say any purchase of more than 2-3 handguns in a single month should be looked at. AR purchases should cease IMHO. :claw

This is part of the stupidity of the left. He can only use one of these at a time. Does it matter how many vans the Paris attacker had available to him at the rental facility? No.

He could have done just as well with one gun and was simply not as "prepared" as the silly ass media makes him out to be. Who can't hit someone in a crowd of 20K or so packed like fucking sardines, from a 32nd floor when these folks are lit up and stand out like a turd in a punchbowl? Media makes him out to be some highly trained assassin, he was spraying and praying. He spent a lot of money and basically used a small fraction of the shit he bought.

Consider that next time you think the number of firearms the attacker has means anything at all. 2 guys with one gun each could have emptied that crowd if they staged properly, but one guy with even 1000 guns is going to only get the cherry picked fish in a barrel folks that spray and pray grants him.

[DMC]

It's a gap in the law... race has nothing to do with it. Multiple handgun purchases by the same individual on the same day or consecutive days must be reported - rifle purchases do not (which needs to change obviously).

And while I won't go as far as Avante is - the second amendment is there to stay - I do think AR type guns need to go. They serve no practical hunting or home protection purpose, they're designed to kill people at range and that's all.

Do all semi-autos need to go?

The AR-15 isn't an AK 47 and in fact a real AK 47 cost around 30K. A semi-auto version isn't an AK-47 any more than an AR-15 isn't an M-16 just because they look alike.

Nothing like the gun ignorant making gun policy statements.

[Avante]

Do all semi-autos need to go?

The AR-15 isn't an AK 47 and in fact a real AK 47 cost around 30K. A semi-auto version isn't an AK-47 any more than an AR-15 isn't an M-16 just because they look alike.

Nothing like the gun ignorant making gun policy statements.

Why does anyone not in the military or a cop need anything other than a low caliber pistol and the basic simple hunting rifle......well? One example of any need for a weapon that can kill 10 people in less than 10 seconds, ya can't do it.

[DMC]

Why does anyone not in the military or a cop need anything other than a low caliber pistol and the basic simple hunting rifle......well? One example of any need for a weapon that can kill 10 people in less than 10 seconds, ya can't do it.


Why does a cop need these weapons?

[Avante]

Why does a cop need these weapons?

Dude, how about answering my question, ok? Why does anyone not defending the country or our laws need a weapon that will mow down a football team in a matter of seconds.....well? You hunt deer with an automatic, semi automatic weapon.....really? Rabbit hunting with a...ratatatatatata...really? What would a gun like that do to a dove, a quail?

[blizz]

Why does a cop need these weapons?

That’s a stupid question.

Avante: It’s not that people NEED those guns. It’s that it’s our right to have them because the gov has them. That’s what the right to bear arms is about. It’s not for hunting, it’s to protect ourselves from the gov.

[Avante]

That’s a stupid question.

Avante: It’s not that people NEED those guns. It’s that it’s our right to have them because the gov has them. That’s what the right to bear arms is about. It’s not for hunting, it’s to protect ourselves from the gov.

The right to bear arms is about a totally different world than the one we live in today. So why are we STILL going with laws/rules about a world that no longer exists and hasn't for a long time? There was a time you could walk in a drug store and buy cocaine, a time when blacks couldn't do this or that and neither could women. There was a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Look at the game of footbal, look at how ya cant hit there, hit that way.....why? They used to fight until a guy could no longer continue in boxing, we had 100 round bouts, why change that? So why are we STILL going with old ass laws that have shit to do with how things are today? We as a society are way too damn fucked up to have weapons anynore, we have proved that.

Dude, who in your familly has ever had a gun fight with the govenment, yep....mine either. Right there is why you don't need a weapon, deranged.

As far as I know the only time the govenment ever battled it out with it's citizens was long ago in some mining problems in West Virginia.

[DMC]

Dude, how about answering my question, ok? Why does anyone not defending the country or our laws need a weapon that will mow down a football team in a matter of seconds.....well? You hunt deer with an automatic, semi automatic weapon.....really? Rabbit hunting with a...ratatatatatata...really? What would a gun like that do to a dove, a quail?

Of course deer are hunted with semi-autos. Do you think a semi-auto shotgun that people hunt dove and quail with all the time goes "ratatatatatata"?

Learn something about what you're talking about before you start asking stupid questions. That would be a monumental accomplishment for you.

[DMC]

That’s a stupid question.

Avante: It’s not that people NEED those guns. It’s that it’s our right to have them because the gov has them. That’s what the right to bear arms is about. It’s not for hunting, it’s to protect ourselves from the gov.

That doesn't answer it. Why does a cop need a semi-auto?

[Avante]

Of course deer are hunted with semi-autos. Do you think a semi-auto shotgun that people hunt dove and quail with all the time goes "ratatatatatata"?

Learn something about what you're talking about before you start asking stupid questions. That would be a monumental accomplishment for you.

Let me slow it down for ya slick....

Does Joe Public need a weapon that can wipe out people in a matter of seconds? Why?

You really haven't figured out this isn't the same world today?

[Avante]

That doesn't answer it. Why does a cop need a semi-auto?

Let;s see so he can deal with that "gang" of bank robbers? The law being far better equipped than the bad guys, ya reckon skippy?

[DMC]

Let me slow it down for ya slick....

Does Joe Public need a weapon that can wipe out people in a matter of seconds? Why?

You really haven't figured out this isn't the same world today?

Of course not, so get rid of your vehicle.

[DMC]

Let;s see so he can deal with that "gang" of bank robbers? The law being far better equipped than the bad guys, ya reckon skippy?

Then there's no problem. The law can simply handle anything we do since someone who goes off the deep end is a bad guy.

[Avante]

Of course not, so get rid of your vehicle.

If you see nothing wrong with comparing machine guns to vehicles I cant help ya moron.

Here comes that deranged driver in his truck, so ya jump up off the road, he just misses ya. What if he'd had a machine gun, now think....ok?

[Avante]

Then there's no problem. The law can simply handle anything we do since someone who goes off the deep end is a bad guy.

A bad guy with a machine gun vs a bad guy with a hand gun, now think, ok?

[Avante]

Why are people like this DMC so damn stupid about this? The common citizen doesn't need a fucking weapon that can stand off an army.

[Darkwaters]

It's been pretty fucked up out here in Las Vegas. Been a mess all week. I work at one of the hospitals that got 200 of the patients from the shooting. But after nearly a week things are a lot better and the mourning is really kicking off. Tough times.

[hater]

Once drone armies are implemented which is only a few years off. These gun fellatiors will have no chance even with their rapid fire calibre weapons. All they will do is stick the rifle up their asses before a drone decapitates their stupid ass

Guns will be as obsolete as a longsword in about 5-10 years

[DMC]

If you see nothing wrong with comparing machine guns to vehicles I cant help ya moron.

Here comes that deranged driver in his truck, so ya jump up off the road, he just misses ya. What if he'd had a machine gun, now think....ok?

You're changing "semi-auto" to "machine guns". Fully automatic weapons are already banned, most people don't own one and you cannot buy one without approval of your local police chief.

Do you want to stick to one lane or are you just going to go full retard again?

[DMC]

A bad guy with a machine gun vs a bad guy with a hand gun, now think, ok?

Which bad guy had a machine gun? Hand guns are semi-autos.

[DMC]

Why are people like this DMC so damn stupid about this? The common citizen doesn't need a fucking weapon that can stand off an army.

And you don't need to fuck a 12 year old with a nation full of older women but you did.

[Will Hunting]

That’s a stupid question.

Avante: It’s not that people NEED those guns. It’s that it’s our right to have them because the gov has them. That’s what the right to bear arms is about. It’s not for hunting, it’s to protect ourselves from the gov.

I've never understood this. Going by the logic that "it's our right to have them because the govt has them", citizens should be allowed to have their own nukes and missiles. Is that what you're advocating for?

[blizz]

Nope. I’m not advocating anything. That WAS the intent and spirit of the law. Today is much different than when it was created. You’re also taking that too far. The gov wouldn’t nuke it’s own people. Come on at least be rational about this. The police need them because bad guys have them. Remember the guys that had full auto AKs that robbed that bank in LA? The hand guns they had were no match. Also, this guy did not have fully automatic weapons. They are banned. In order to get one it has to be pre-ban and it costs a shit ton of money for the stamp. So it’s not like there are a ton of legal ones out there. Bottom line is that there is no easy solution to this. Ban all scary looking guns and you’re hurting the enthusiast, the law abiding citizen and empowering those that would do bad things with those guns that are already in circulation. People that do bad things don’t care about laws. They’re going to get weapons legally or illegally

[blizz]

Why are people like this DMC so damn stupid about this? The common citizen doesn't need a fucking weapon that can stand off an army.

An AR 15 with a bump stock cannot stand off an army. THAT is stupid.

[Will Hunting]

Nope. I’m not advocating anything. That WAS the intent and spirit of the law. Today is much different than when it was created. You’re also taking that too far. The gov wouldn’t nuke it’s own people. Come on at least be rational about this. The police need them because bad guys have them. Remember the guys that had full auto AKs that robbed that bank in LA? The hand guns they had were no match. Also, this guy did not have fully automatic weapons. They are banned. In order to get one it has to be pre-ban and it costs a shit ton of money for the stamp. So it’s not like there are a ton of legal ones out there. Bottom line is that there is no easy solution to this. Ban all scary looking guns and you’re hurting the enthusiast, the law abiding citizen and empowering those that would do bad things with those guns that are already in circulation. People that do bad things don’t care about laws. They’re going to get weapons legally or illegally

So the big evil government that people need to protect themselves from would be willing to use guns on its own people but not nukes? Sounds like you're equivocating.

[blizz]

Guns kill people. Nukes destroy the country including the one they live in. Come on man. Stop it. Again. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m saying that’s what the law was for. Like it or not, it’s a fact.

[Will Hunting]

Guns kill people. Nukes destroy the country including the one they live in. Come on man. Stop it. Again. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m saying that’s what the law was for. Like it or not, it’s a fact.

Ah ok I misunderstood you. Agreed that was the original intent of the law.

[DMC]

So the big evil government that people need to protect themselves from would be willing to use guns on its own people but not nukes? Sounds like you're equivocating.

The problem with your argument is in scale.

The locks on your doors won't stop someone from kicking your door down, or breaking out windows or just burning your home to the ground, but you are entitled to at least a modicum of protection and often deterrence is all that is needed. While the government has a multi-tiered barricade system on their buildings, our homes have almost nothing but we are not nearly as big a target as the government is. We take our chances. Still, we have the right to build a fortress if we so choose until we use it to imprison people, then it gets removed from us or us from it.

There's a reason mass shootings don't happen at gun shows and police stations but concerts, airports, churches, schools and universities instead. Even the Ft Hood shooter didn't try it at the range but in a place where people were by and large unarmed.

[Will Hunting]

The problem with your argument is in scale.

The locks on your doors won't stop someone from kicking your door down, or breaking out windows or just burning your home to the ground, but you are entitled to at least a modicum of protection and often deterrence is all that is needed. While the government has a multi-tiered barricade system on their buildings, our homes have almost nothing but we are not nearly as big a target as the government is. We take our chances. Still, we have the right to build a fortress if we so choose until we use it to imprison people, then it gets removed from us or us from it.

here's a reason mass shootings don't happen at gun shows and police stations but concerts, airports, churches, schools and universities instead. Even the Ft Hood shooter didn't try it at the range but in a place where people were by and large unarmed.

I'm not talking about protecting yourself from intruders. I agree that guns are a good deterrent in that regard and am fine with people have guns in that respect, I was only addressing the "protect yourself against the government" argument.

[Xevious]

Do all semi-autos need to go?

The AR-15 isn't an AK 47 and in fact a real AK 47 cost around 30K. A semi-auto version isn't an AK-47 any more than an AR-15 isn't an M-16 just because they look alike.

Nothing like the gun ignorant making gun policy statements.
None of which has anything to do with what I said. A lot of cheap semi-auto rifles are look-alikes. But they can still be modified easy enough to fire full-auto.

[DMC]

I'm not talking about protecting yourself from intruders. I agree that guns are a good deterrent in that regard and am fine with people have guns in that respect, I was only addressing the "protect yourself against the government" argument.

It's a futile endeavor but that doesn't mean shouldn't have the right to try.

[DMC]

None of which has anything to do with what I said. A lot of cheap semi-auto rifles are look-alikes. But they can still be modified easy enough to fire full-auto.

Of course they can. You can build a fully automatic weapon in your garage if you have the lathes and equipment. It's illegal as fuck to modify to full auto without a registered sear and completely illegal to manufacture without a class II license. So nothing legislation can do to make it more illegal. When fully automatic weapons become a problem, we can talk about that.

The problem is people focus on the peripherals like how much ammo he had, how many guns he had, the bump stock, all this shit. He could have rammed a truck through that crowd and killed a shit ton just as easily. No one focuses on the truck or trying to make it harder to rent a van or truck.

If he had a suppressed rifle with subsonic rounds he could have killed people all night, here and there and still be on the loose.

I'm not in favor of work arounds for things like the NFA or 1986 ban on autos by having bump stocks. I'm not in favor of a lot of shit that's a side issue to the gun debate.

People always look for the post mortem "can't happen again" root cause analysis however sometimes people are just fucking crazy or they hate others and decide to go out in a blaze. It sucks, but that's a risk you take when you pack yourself into a crowd of 20K, outside in a compromised position, lit up like a target. You don't know you're taking that risk and in an ideal world it wouldn't be a risk to have a good time but even in church you can be gunned down if you drew a short straw that day. The best you can do is have the ability to send lead back the other way if at all possible, maybe stop the attack, maybe not. Maybe even make it worse, but these people won't attack in situations that don't favor a high body count.

[spurraider21]

I'm not talking about protecting yourself from intruders. I agree that guns are a good deterrent in that regard and am fine with people have guns in that respect, I was only addressing the "protect yourself against the government" argument.
yeah, i had this argument with dmc a while back and he wasn't understanding it then either

[blizz]

A suppressor doesn’t do what it does in the movies. It does NOT make it silent. It also slows the round down so it might not have been as deadly. They didn’t find the guy because of the sounds outside or because of the muzzle flash. You couldn’t see it anyway. They found him because of the noise inside the hotel. They still would have heard it with a suppressor.

[spurraider21]

Of course they can. You can build a fully automatic weapon in your garage if you have the lathes and equipment. It's illegal as fuck to modify to full auto without a registered sear and completely illegal to manufacture without a class II license. So nothing legislation can do to make it more illegal. When fully automatic weapons become a problem, we can talk about that.

The problem is people focus on the peripherals like how much ammo he had, how many guns he had, the bump stock, all this shit. He could have rammed a truck through that crowd and killed a shit ton just as easily. No one focuses on the truck or trying to make it harder to rent a van or truck.

If he had a suppressed rifle with subsonic rounds he could have killed people all night, here and there and still be on the loose.

I'm not in favor of work arounds for things like the NFA or 1986 ban on autos by having bump stocks. I'm not in favor of a lot of shit that's a side issue to the gun debate.

People always look for the post mortem "can't happen again" root cause analysis however sometimes people are just fucking crazy or they hate others and decide to go out in a blaze. It sucks, but that's a risk you take when you pack yourself into a crowd of 20K, outside in a compromised position, lit up like a target. You don't know you're taking that risk and in an ideal world it wouldn't be a risk to have a good time but even in church you can be gunned down if you drew a short straw that day. The best you can do is have the ability to send lead back the other way if at all possible, maybe stop the attack, maybe not. Maybe even make it worse, but these people won't attack in situations that don't favor a high body count.
except no because unlike what happened in Nice in a street, the area was barricaded and fenced

[Xevious]

Of course they can. You can build a fully automatic weapon in your garage if you have the lathes and equipment. It's illegal as fuck to modify to full auto without a registered sear and completely illegal to manufacture without a class II license. So nothing legislation can do to make it more illegal. When fully automatic weapons become a problem, we can talk about that.

The problem is people focus on the peripherals like how much ammo he had, how many guns he had, the bump stock, all this shit. He could have rammed a truck through that crowd and killed a shit ton just as easily. No one focuses on the truck or trying to make it harder to rent a van or truck.

If he had a suppressed rifle with subsonic rounds he could have killed people all night, here and there and still be on the loose.

I'm not in favor of work arounds for things like the NFA or 1986 ban on autos by having bump stocks. I'm not in favor of a lot of shit that's a side issue to the gun debate.

People always look for the post mortem "can't happen again" root cause analysis however sometimes people are just fucking crazy or they hate others and decide to go out in a blaze. It sucks, but that's a risk you take when you pack yourself into a crowd of 20K, outside in a compromised position, lit up like a target. You don't know you're taking that risk and in an ideal world it wouldn't be a risk to have a good time but even in church you can be gunned down if you drew a short straw that day. The best you can do is have the ability to send lead back the other way if at all possible, maybe stop the attack, maybe not. Maybe even make it worse, but these people won't attack in situations that don't favor a high body count.
Which wasn't at all possible in this scenerio. The Orlando shooting, the Colorado theatre shooting, and the like might be a different story. You can argue logistics all day, how hard or easy it is to pull off, what components are legal and which are not... but the fact remains that a crowd of people were fired upon by automatic rifles from a distance. To just throw your hands up and say nothing can or should be changed is irresponsible.

Again, I'm not anti second amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. All I'm saying is that maybe we need to question what the practical application for some of these guns are.

[spurraider21]

Which wasn't at all possible in this scenerio. The Orlando shooting, the Colorado theatre shooting, and the like might be a different story. You can argue logistics all day, how hard or easy it is to pull off, what components are legal and which are not... but the fact remains that a crowd of people were fired upon by automatic rifles from a distance. To just throw your hands up and say nothing can or should be changed is irresponsible.

Again, I'm not anti second amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. All I'm saying is that maybe we need to question what the practical application for some of these guns are.
what what a libtard cuck

[Mark Celibate]

what what a libtard cuck

when's the wedding brah?

[DMC]

except no because unlike what happened in Nice in a street, the area was barricaded and fenced
So once those people ran out of the gates, no one could have mowed them down with a truck?

You just argue to see your name on the screen.

[spurraider21]

when's the wedding brah?
Last Saturday scrah

[DMC]

Last Saturday scrah

No wonder you've been so pissed off lately.

[blizz]

They weren’t automatic weapons sir. Stick to the facts. I will say that there is absolutely no need for bump stocks. Simple.

[DMC]

Which wasn't at all possible in this scenerio. The Orlando shooting, the Colorado theatre shooting, and the like might be a different story. You can argue logistics all day, how hard or easy it is to pull off, what components are legal and which are not... but the fact remains that a crowd of people were fired upon by automatic rifles from a distance. To just throw your hands up and say nothing can or should be changed is irresponsible.

Again, I'm not anti second amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. All I'm saying is that maybe we need to question what the practical application for some of these guns are.

Wrong. Get your facts straight. There wasn't an automatic rifle anywhere in the room.

See, this is the kind of shit that leads the majority of people away from the answer - people who don't fact check shit before they are ready to initiate policy changes. They focus on how many guns he had even if he only used one. They talk about tannerite and other shit he didn't use. They want to outlaw every aspect of everything he did as if they can go back in time and stop him from doing what he did. When all this sifts through the sieve, what comes out eventually is just a run on firearm related merchandise, some political hay and more money to the NRA. No one is going to confiscate guns, and that's what would have to happen to placate those "evil gun" people who, like you, also don't know the facts.

Everyone wants that one simple lever to solve these issues but it eventually comes down to confiscating firearms. Making shit illegal doesn't remove it from existence otherwise you couldn't buy illegal shit because it wouldn't exist.

[blizz]

I agree. There is no easy answer. There are things that should change that MIGHT help but again they would be laws. Bad guys don’t care about laws. That’s what everyone conveniently forgets. Listen. This is a sad, tragic, unfortunate case of some deranged individual that killed people. Is that rare? Hell no. The means is something we haven’t seen but the intent was to take lives so imo he would have done it any way using whatever means necessary. You can’t legislate crazy. Waaay back before all this shit Ronald Reagan had it right:

“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

[Xevious]

Wrong. Get your facts straight. There wasn't an automatic rifle anywhere in the room.
You're arguing semantics. Of course there wasn't automatic weapons. But with a fairly simple and legal mod he could effectively fire automatically.

But I'll leave it at that. You do have a point, and one I've argued after tragedies past, that kneejerk reactions only bolster sales. And regardless of legislation, nobody is rounding up guns.

[blizz]

You have to argue semantics. Auto and semi auto are two huge distinctions in regards to this discussion.

[DMC]

You're arguing semantics. Of course there wasn't automatic weapons. But with a fairly simple and legal mod he could effectively fire automatically.

But I'll leave it at that. You do have a point, and one I've argued after tragedies past, that kneejerk reactions only bolster sales. And regardless of legislation, nobody is rounding up guns.

Like blizz says, it always comes down to verbiage, things like "evil features" and such. The only thing that makes a receiver worth 10K more is a small metal piece called a sear that you could mass produce for less than 5 dollars each. It's valuable and it's restricted because it's registered as transferable.

I don't know if a transferable subgun was ever used in a crime, much less a mass shooting. Outside of that, it's illegal to convert a semiauto to full auto. An AK-47 is a select fire assault rifle and a transferable one will set you back a new vehicle. Not to worry though, the new vehicle will be worth half it's value in 3 years or so while the subgun will be worth more than you paid for it.

So laws already exist to keep full automatics off the streets. Those used in the bank heist were illegally modified but that wasn't the reason the situation went sideways. The kevlar vests allowed the perps to survive handgun fire because the cops are also targets of gun legislation.

[DJR210]

Time to change things this is no longer 1776.

A Wyoming rancher who owns cattle, owns property, has a spotless record, actually no record. For a guy like this to purchase a weapon is totally different than some cat in Detroit who washs dishes at Denny's. Yes, who somebody is should be huge in their ability to own any weapon. I'd go with a person has to have at least a 1000 in the bank before they can qualify for gun owner ship.

:lol you did ok until your last line.. You do realize some pretty scummy people out there can easily show they have a grand, right? A grand ain't shit :lol

[Avante]

:lol you did ok until your last line.. You do realize some pretty scummy people out there can easily show they have a grand, right? A grand ain't shit :lol

You do realize I am talking a real check on a persons history....right? A check on the checks they write, where the money comes from, etc etc etc.

40 year old man in Idaho, who has been on his job for 20 years, no criminal record, a home owner and married has 1200 in the bank.

A 21 year old in Chicago, with a record, has children but is raising none of them has 1400 in the bank but no job.

Who gets approved for a weapon?

Botton line....

Get real REAL picky about just who can and cannot own a weapon.

[DMC]

Avante financially stuck int he 60's.

[Avante]

Avante financially stuck int he 60's.

DMCs head stuck a foot up his ass.

Botton line stupid......ya gotta have a real job, be somebody, own a home, no record, ok little guy? Some known thug in the inner cities who has never held on to any job more than a few months, can't pay his child support, has tickets he can't pay......no weapon................ok half pint?

Why are you struggling so badly with this?

[DMC]

DMCs head stuck a foot up his ass.

Botton line stupid......ya gotta have a real job, be somebody, own a home, no record, ok little guy? Some known thig in the inner cities who has never held on to any job more than a few months, can't pay his child support, has ticets he can't pay......no weapon................ok half pint?

So to exercise your rights, you have to be affluent? Are we going back to the days when only land owners could vote? Your suggestion would affect mostly minorities and the poor. You're really a fucktard.

You think a home owner could survive with 1400.00 in liquid assets?

I guess we know how you get by, det statue of liberty check.

[Avante]

So to exercise your rights, you have to be affluent? Are we going back to the days when only land owners could vote? Your suggestion would affect mostly minorities and the poor. You're really a fucktard.

You think a home owner could survive with 1400.00 in liquid assets?

I guess we know how you get by, det statue of liberty check.

Stupid, I'm retired insurance sales ok? I get ya don't understand % on old business, something ya lock in after five years in. So wrong as usual. And....the wife works.

Pay attention.

You ever live in a neighborhood of renters? Then live in a neighnorhood of home owners? HUGE....difference. We can't have low lifes, failures, can't keep a job, own nothing, in and out of trouble owning weapons, even a simple shit like you can figure this out. You put guns in the hands of successful people who have proven themselves over time, ok?

My God this little shit is dense.

[Avante]

Unless a person lives a stable life, ya know....job, no history of crimes/mental problem/radical anythings/a success, $$$$ in the bank/owns property, they can't qualify for gun ownership......yep....just that smple. No job, a history of problems, trouble, don't own anything, never been a success at anything......forget it.

Just that easy.

Guy walks in smelling of grease, has a tattoo on his neck, a t-shirt that reads......Bad to the Bone. He's wearing shades and a huge ring on his pinky. He wants to apply for gun ownership.

[blizz]

And that would have prevented this how? The guy had a lot of money and several residences. Most of these mass killings aren’t carried out by thugs. ��

[Pavlov]

I don't rule out a false flag.I do.


On other forums the possibility of its having been a false flag is being discussed.They're idiots.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/do-you-think-the-los-vegas-shooting-could-be-a-false-flag.515629/

If the government is planning to declare marshal law sometime in the future, it will be easier for it to control an unarmed population. The government may be planning to make gun owernship illegal. In order to do that it needs a big majority of public support. The more people die in these mass shootings, the higher the number of people who support gun control will be and the easier it will be for the government to declare private gun ownership illegal.

This isn't a far-fetched idea; if the government can kill a few thousand citzens in New York,...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261123&p=8610878&viewfull=1#post8610878

...the idea that it could kill a few hundred in Las Vegas shouldn't surprise anybody.It's a far-fetched idea.

And stupid.

[spurraider21]

Your suggestion would affect mostly minorities and the poor.
Always DMC's greatest concern

[spurraider21]

You should check out a psychiatrist

[Pavlov]

For now I'm just posting this info so that it can be discussed.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-las-vegas-massacre-the-media-narrative-is-deceptive/5612247
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=las+vegas+shooting+more+than+ one+shooter


I haven't had time to take a good look at it yet.


edit five minutes later.
-------------------------------
https://www.google.es/search?q=LAS+VEGAS+*Rare+Video*+More+Than+One+Shoo ter&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTva6_7PLWAhWB7xQKHQRSBF0Q_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=617

(https://www.google.es/search?q=LAS+VEGAS+*Rare+Video*+More+Than+One+Shoo ter&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTva6_7PLWAhWB7xQKHQRSBF0Q_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=617)Forensic acoustic proof of SECOND shooter in the Las Vegas massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI


(https://www.google.es/search?q=LAS+VEGAS+*Rare+Video*+More+Than+One+Shoo ter&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTva6_7PLWAhWB7xQKHQRSBF0Q_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=617):lol Health Ranger.