Shockingly enough I read flame throwers are really not illegal, because no one bothered to make them illegal.
Mass Shooting in Vegas
- Thread starter onceaday
- Start date
So why did it take the cops over 1 hour to get into the room when the security guard told them he had been shot and the guy was still blazing away? (was he? or did he already kill himself) considering some lunatic is blazing away over and hour to get into the room seems kinda pathetic.
After the security guard was shot he stopped firing out the windows.
That's why the cops didn't try to force their way in.
What the Sheriff called a 'barricade situation' as the shooter was no longer active.
The cops cleared the floor and waited for SWAT.
Had the shooter begun firing again then I am sure they would have crashed the door without SWAT.
Shooter only fired for 11 minutes.
He seemed to have a plan to try and escape and may have been formulating that in the time before SWAT arrived. However Sheriff did not have info when he killed himself. It may have been when they blew the door and the sound of the shot was masked, or he may have done it earlier when no one was close enough to the room to hear it.
Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is useless and only penalizes law abiding citizens.
Low capacity magazines are made high capacity by drilling out a rivet that costs a penny in order to restore it to full capacity again. A mass murderer is not going to let a rivet prevent him from his rampage.
As well, the type of rifle he was using, an AR15, like most modern firearms, is set up for rapid magazine changes, so very little break in the action.
Troops go into battle with 30 round magazines because they are dependable and offer a good balance between size and weight, not because 30 rounders are all they need. The 30 round magazine the U.S uses offers 4,800 rounds between stoppages. No 60 or 100 round magazine can offer that dependability. They carry a minimum of 5 and up to 10, so they are carrying anywhere from 140 to 280 rds because they only load to 28 rds, again for dependability and to allow easier seating of the mag on a closed bolt.
I'm an anti-gun guy, but I have to say I very much enjoy all the gun debate stuff which always happens after a mass killing.
I find amazing all the pro-gun defences and arguments are.
Anti-gun guys, you go to give them credit. They never budge.
You can have someone go on a mass killing spree somehow killing 10,000 people in a stadium, and not one pro-gun guy will flinch.
I find amazing all the pro-gun defences and arguments are.
Anti-gun guys, you go to give them credit. They never budge.
You can have someone go on a mass killing spree somehow killing 10,000 people in a stadium, and not one pro-gun guy will flinch.
I agree magazines should be limited to 10 rounds or so. Some states do have those laws.
You're wrong about a bump stock ban being a waste of time though
See above about ineffective magazine limits. No guy set on breaking the law is going to let a tiny little rivet stop him.
You think a crazy or motivated person says, "I think I'll commit mass murder today". "Better leave my mags pinned to 10 rds though because that's legal".
Anywho, I'm generally against gun-control because:
"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns"
Its a really, really bad idea
"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns"
Its a really, really bad idea
The NRA seems to be agreeing (as a way of preempting other actions).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html
Many arguments about guns have some rationality but this is ridiculous. Guns are a tool. There is no conceivable use for those tools that require high capacity magazines.
What you argument boils down to is saying there is no reason to have laws because people will find ways of breaking them.
If you make guns hard to get then the outlaws will have more trouble getting them and they'll cost more.
And no rational person has suggested banning guns, just having a process to make it less likely that the wrong people get their hands on guns. One of the FOX talking heads was comparing shooting to truck/car attacks. What they miss is that cars are already heavily regulated. Can you picture the NRA response if someone suggested an age restriction and firearms proficiency/safety tests before bing issues a firearms license?
Sure there is. Pro-gun supporters need high capacity mags because there's always that threat the US government will order their troops to take over everyone's home. So they need 20 rifles, a flamethrower and grenades to defend against the group of Navy Seals coming after their motor home.
That wouldnt have stopped Paddock because there were no red flags with him, plus he didnt have a criminal record.
Also, if I want to get a gun illegally all I have to do is drive to Jane & Finch and I'll have a gun within minutes
Both you and basketcase are quite dense. I've stated twice making a legal mag prohib only takes drilling out a rivet and isn't going to stop someone from committing a crime.
There's all sorts of shooting competitions out there that are very popular that use full capacity magazines. 3 Gun, PRS, USPSA, ISPC, IDPA, Bianchi Cup, Service Rifle, CMP, etc.
Then there's the fact that people in the U.S. WANT guns. The large majority of them as a matter of fact. You don't get over 100 million guns in a country unless people want them. Gun manufacturers aren't charities making them and giving them away because it makes them feel good. It's civilian shooters, not law enforcement or military that keeps these gun manufacturers in business. Some very large companies like Strum Ruger barely sell anything to police and military. As well, the NRA isn't a charity either or funded by an endowment. It's funded by people in the U.S.
You're making statements out of ignorance. Opinions are not the facts. You and basketcase need to do your research. You are offering off the cuff solutions to a complex problem you know nothing about. The U.S. was settled by the gun. There will always be guns with full capacity magazines in that country.
And before some idiot brings up Australia, there are more guns there now than before they introduced restrictions.
The Las Vegas murderer passed every gun control measure and would have passed any future measures. He was a pure white, clean as a whistle U.S. citizen. And if his family and girlfriend had no idea he was capable of this mass murder, no law or test would have prevented it either.
Look, it is the reality that American's LOVE their toys, their wars and war movies and video games glorifying killing. And assault rifles. They loooove their assault rifles and handguns.
Look, I've had many guns in my lifetime and had a lot of fun with them. I hold an FAC and have had a Restricted PAL and owned several Restricted firearms. I no longer find guns fun, nor useful. And in my circumstances, safe storage and the respect and responsibility I feel towards guns make them a liability in my life. So I get it. Guns and shit that goes BOOM and BANG are fun! They are rationalized under the patriotism of the Second Amendment. Ostensibly to protect their liberty from government. Ironically, those who are so pro-gun seem to be fine with the real insidious threat to their liberty and that is of government surveillance of their online and day to day activities and communications etc. Again, under the patriotism of "Homeland" security and the threat of Muslims.
Fact is, that the American's love of guns under the Second Amendment have killed more people than terrorists have killed, or can ever kill.
According to the US Center for Disease Control, NINETY THREE American's are killed every day by firearms. So, the mass murder of 59 people in Las Vegas is equal to about 15 hours of everyday gun deaths in the United States.
I love the United States. I really do. I think it really is a fantastic country with great people and possibly one of the best systems of government in the world. And for that reason I am sad that this gun problem hurts so many of them. I do not see any viable "solution" to the problem. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. Limiting new sales will do nothing to reduce the And if the government bought every one of them back for $10,000 each, there would still be tens of millions of guns in circulation.
I have no solution in mind. I suspect that life in the US will decline into more violence and insidious government surveillance under the premise of protection. If there was some way to create a more happy society in general, I think that that would reduce violence. But that is just the optimistic humanitarian in me fantasizing...
Guns are part of many cultures, not just the U.S., although none seem to have the massive problems of the U.S. There's even a large gun culture in Canada. Canada is still mostly rural, and in some parts of Canada, there is still a gun in every household. Tens of millions of guns in Canada as a matter of fact. Most of these anti gun people live in big cities.
