Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WrentheFaceless**

Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

**Ouze**

2 images of the firearms have been released so far. One was a stock AR15, and the second was this AR15:

Which has a slidefire (bumpfire) stock and a 100 round magazine.

**Vaktathi**

Yeah, having the grip way out on front there looks weird...until you notice the slidefire stock and suddenly it makes sense.

Dude must have had some solid practice, those things are awkward to use, both to to stay on target and to keep a proper string of fire up with, at least in my experience. That said, the dude appeared to have large numbers of the surefire casket mags too, and those arent cheap, so perhaps he did have lots of experience if he's investing in that much hardware.

It will certainly be interesting to see how stuff plays out and what they find on the weapons.

**Ouze**

I found the slidefires hard to control without a VFG, and then pretty easy though it took a few mags worth of practice.

**TheCustomLime**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Okay, first of all, that is a grossly oversimplified view of the Civil War. Secondly, your solution to gun violence is even more gun violence? wtf?

**WrentheFaceless**

TheCustomLime wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Okay, first of all, that is a grossly oversimplified view of the Civil War. Secondly, your solution to gun violence is even more gun violence? wtf?

You misinterpreted the meaning, he used prohibition as an example of a time where taking something away didnt work. Grossly oversimplified yes, but taking away slavery was needed to be done, violence isnt being advocated, not calling for Civil War 2 or anything

**TheCustomLime**

Still, I think we should attempt to curb gun violence without resorting to shooting more Americans. Just trying to seize everyone's guns would be hugely wasteful in lives and resources and would likely not even work. The best thing to dom imo, is to try and reduce proliferation through national buy-back and tax credit programs while reducing the availability of handguns. This would take a long time but with how common firearms are in the USA no viable long-term solution would be viable without decades of hard work.

**Desubot**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Still, I think we should attempt to curb gun violence without resorting to shooting more Americans. Just trying to seize everyone's guns would be hugely wasteful in lives and resources and would likely not even work. The best thing to dom imo, is to try and reduce proliferation through national buy-back and tax credit programs while reducing the availability of handguns. This would take a long time but with how common firearms are in the USA no viable long-term solution would be viable without decades of hard work.

Only real way is to indoctrinate the next generation into being gun fearing wusses. as the older generation dies out, there will be less interest in it.

**whembly**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
amanita wrote:
The 2nd Amendment is about the populace having the capability to resist a tyrannical government, not about dangerous 4-legged animals. A gun isn't evil, it's a tool used for good or ill by its wielder. Just like a hammer or a knife. Hypothetically, if you went camping with your wife and 4 men showed up and said they were going to have fun with the two of you would you say the pistol you have is evil then?
I wonder how many people are saved by having a gun in such situations, vs how many people are killed in altercations which they would have otherwise survived if guns weren't readily available?

I don't know, I haven't checked the numbers, but I'd guess at the former being much smaller than the latter.

It is an area where I think muricans tend to differ from much of the rest of the world, even if the latter number is much larger I'd guess many (most?) Americans would still want to have their guns for their protecting themselves whereas many other societies would rather have them removed for protecting the community as a whole.

Like, take the number of people killed by cops in the US, surely that number would be tiny if it weren't for the quarter of the population that is armed.

But it'd be interesting to see a poll about what the average murican does think, because obviously we only hear for the vocal ones when in reality roughly 3 quarters of you don't own guns in the first place so mustn't think they are a tremendously necessary part of life.

The CDC report that Obama commissioned stated that between 800,000 to 1.8 million successful defensive gun uses over their study (I think it was 12 to 18 mo review).

Average murrican vote overwhelming for candidates that protects the 2nd amendment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Do you think Civil War II: Electric Bugaboo over gun rights would be necessary too?

**AdeptSister**

We have put limits on amendments before if we think it is for the public good.

Is there a disagreement that there is connection between gun deaths and the number of guns we have available? And if we had less guns, that there may be less deaths?

I know guns are special in America because we have an amendment about them. But if we really wish to have less deaths, we should really look into some type of limit. Or at least invest more in removing the illegal inventory or the ability for legal guns to get to criminals. That alone would solve so many issues in America.

In relation to the original topic: The two largest mass shootings in the US have been done with legal firearms. Should we just expect to have more in the future? What structure do we have to stop a law abiding citizen from killing innocents? Should there be a structure in place?

**Desubot**

AdeptSister wrote:
We have put limits on amendments before if we think it is for the public good.

Is there a disagreement that there is connection between gun deaths and the number of guns we have available? And if we had less guns, that there may be less deaths?

I know guns are special in America because we have an amendment about them. But if we really wish to have less deaths, we should really look into some type of limit. Or at least invest more in removing the illegal inventory or the ability for legal guns to get to criminals. That alone would solve so many issues in America.

In relation to the original topic: The two largest mass shootings in the US have been done with legal firearms. Should we just expect to have more in the future? What structure do we have to stop a law abiding citizen from killing innocents? Should there be a structure in place?

Well i guess depression would increase significantly as people have less ways of ending them selves if guns were not available. terrible but true.

Primary focus should be on solving why people go on shooting rampages instead of how they go on rampages.

**Frazzled**

Steelmage99 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.

Russia or Russians have no room to talk about gun control and its efficacy. You're why a whole bunch of us are armed.

So you reject the point brought up about Australia because it was presented by a Russian?

How many Mexican cartels are deeply imbedded in Australia again?

**Vaktathi**

What structure do you put in place to stop something like that?

Not trying to poopoo the idea, I just have no idea what that would look like while not running into 2A compliance issues. Essentially, once you have such items in circulation, and either cant or wont remove them, what do you do to control their use without trampling on legitimate uses as well?

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

And it literally tore the country apart. I have relatives that died in that war.

Are you volunteering?

**Desubot**

Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

And it literally tore the country apart. I have relatives that died in that war.

Are you volunteering?

Fraz was probably there in person.

**Frazzled**

Desubot wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

And it literally tore the country apart. I have relatives that died in that war.

Are you volunteering?

Fraz was probably there in person.

You youngins with your rifled muskets. When I was a kid, all we had was smoothbore muskets, and we were glad to have em!

**Steelmage99**

Frazzled wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.

Russia or Russians have no room to talk about gun control and its efficacy. You're why a whole bunch of us are armed.

So you reject the point brought up about Australia because it was presented by a Russian?

How many Mexican cartels are deeply imbedded in Australia again?

Nice attempt at dodging the question.

I take that as a Yes. You did indeed reject the point based on who presented it.

**Frazzled**

I reject the example as Australia is a large island with limited population and little firearm usage before it. Plus Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

**easysauce**

TheCustomLime wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Okay, first of all, that is a grossly oversimplified view of the Civil War. Secondly, your solution to gun violence is even more gun violence? wtf?

The gross oversimplification of the civil war to make it solely about slavery is extremely dishonest at worst, extremely ignorant of history at best.

The unwritten right for the common man to own arms, predates the USA, predates guns themselves, and can be considered a fundamental human right to protect all other rights. People are extremely protective of it for very good reasons.

**Desubot**

Frazzled wrote:
I reject the example as Australia is a large island with limited population and little firearm usage before it. Plus Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

No real borders ether guns to be brought in.

that and why bother with guns when you can throw huntsmen spiders as a weapon.

**easysauce**

Frazzled wrote:
I reject the example as Australia is a large island with limited population and little firearm usage before it. Plus Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

Exactly, his premise was false Frazz...

There is always a pattern of "include only facts that which supports my pre determined outcome" when ever people want to talk about gun control.

Most evident is that every illegal use of guns will be counted as a mark "against", where every single defensive use of firearms is excluded from the evidence on the "for" side.

its like playing a game of basketball where despite sinking your ball into the net, the ref never ups your score, then loudly proclaims your opponent the winner.

**Frazzled**

Desubot wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I reject the example as Australia is a large island with limited population and little firearm usage before it. Plus Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

No real borders ether guns to be brought in.

that and why bother with guns when you can throw huntsmen spiders as a weapon.

Indeed. You're too busy dodging falling killer drop bears. Come on Nature! Seriously!?

Mexico has fabulously striingent gun laws. It does not appear to be working.

**WrentheFaceless**

easysauce wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Okay, first of all, that is a grossly oversimplified view of the Civil War. Secondly, your solution to gun violence is even more gun violence? wtf?

The gross oversimplification of the civil war to make it solely about slavery is extremely dishonest at worst, extremely ignorant of history at best.

The unwritten right for the common man to own arms, predates the USA, predates guns themselves, and can be considered a fundamental human right to protect all other rights. People are extremely protective of it for very good reasons.

Slavery was also an unwritten right since time immemorial (Ex. Bible) that predates guns themselves too. People were extremely protective of it. Didnt make it right.

The 2nd amendment has been put on a lofty pedestal it doesnt belong on, its no more important or less important than any other right

Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

And it literally tore the country apart. I have relatives that died in that war.

Are you volunteering?

Arent you supposed to be seceding from the Union anyways to form the Texas republic?

Sure though, as long as we fight with swords cause we're getting rid of all the guns (not really getting rid of all the guns, dont twist that)

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
easysauce wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

Okay, first of all, that is a grossly oversimplified view of the Civil War. Secondly, your solution to gun violence is even more gun violence? wtf?

The gross oversimplification of the civil war to make it solely about slavery is extremely dishonest at worst, extremely ignorant of history at best.

The unwritten right for the common man to own arms, predates the USA, predates guns themselves, and can be considered a fundamental human right to protect all other rights. People are extremely protective of it for very good reasons.

Slavery was also an unwritten right since time immemorial (Ex. Bible) that predates guns themselves too. People were extremely protective of it. Didnt make it right.

The 2nd amendment has been put on a lofty pedestal it doesnt belong on, its no more important or less important than any other right

Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Counter to that, forcing the south to give up their legal ownership of slaves, while a bloody affair (the Civil War) was necessary to do.

And it literally tore the country apart. I have relatives that died in that war.

Are you volunteering?

Arent you supposed to be seceding from the Union anyways to form the Texas republic?

Sure though, as long as we fight with swords cause we're getting rid of all the guns

Cool. Use your political energies to try to get the Amendment overturned following Constitutional procedures instead of spanking about it on the internet.

**WrentheFaceless**

Its not as easy to whip people into a frenzy as it was during the Prohibition days.

**Desubot**

You guys wanna get off this off topic slavery nonsense?

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

Nukes are considered 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and they are prohibited for civilians.

Just like the pressure bombs by that Boston massacre are considered to be WMDs... those are prohibited.

There is, as far as I know, actually not one single law on the books prohibiting the ownership of a thermonuclear weapon, as the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 has been amended to allow for ownership of fissile material by private entities.. There are however material handling laws on the books for many of it's components. Several people at one point or another have built their own breeder reactors, including the Boy Scouts of America (What fething merit badge is THAT?) capable of enriching radioactive materials. The only thing you have to have to own one though is a Destructive Device permit, to cover the explosives that merge the sub-critical masses of fissile material. As far as i know, the only ICBM in private hands is the scud + launcher sold as part of the Littlefield Collection a few years back, and it's warhead is conventional.

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Its not as easy to whip people into a frenzy as it was during the Prohibition days.

**LordofHats**

I think its easier to whip people into a frenzy these days, but the frenzy isn't quite as crazy. I mean come on. In 1921 an entire city went to war because some folks thought some other folks were gonna kill someone. These days the worst we get is riots cause someone actually was killed XD That's sort of tamer, right

**Mario**

This video (7 minutes) might be useful in the debate: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/914844996016250880