Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[TenEightyOne]

places that specifically do not allow guns (like ...military bases)

That certainly raised my eyebrows.

 

[zzz_pt]

Well, one could notice the dramatically increased % of homicide-by-gun in the US compared to those other nations, and reasonably come up with a hypothesis that the ease of gun access is contributing to our nation's overall higher homicide rate. Though obviously they couldn't be the sole factor, due to the increased non-gun homicides we also have.

The numbers aren't necessarily a measure of our "willingness to kill", just a measure of how much we kill. Perhaps the other countries have stricter gun/knife laws which affect the likelihood of people being able to kill in the spur of the moment... they could be just as willing to kill, but more likely to cool off before being able to.

But that'd still just be a hypothesis, and proving it would depend on all those scientisty bits you touched on. And realistically speaking, there might just be too many variables at play to draw any concrete conclusions.

It's not only just an hypothesis but it has been studied (the link is in my previous post). But here's an excerpt:

Arms legislation can reduce the availability of firearms in case of impulsive acts

A large proportion of all suicides are impulsive acts. Furthermore, a considerable share of homicides occur as a result of ‘expressive violence’, concretely in a domestic context. Research has shown that a firearm is often used in this type of suicides and homicides.


“These findings provide a basis for policy measures. To prevent impulsive suicides and homicides linked to domestic violence, limiting the availability of firearms can make a difference”, says Nils Duquet, researcher at the Flemish Peace Institute. “Therefore, the purpose of arms legislation and other (European) policy measures must be to limit the possession of firearms to those capable of using them in a responsible way and keeping them in a careful and safe manner.” According to Mr Duquet, relevant measures include, for instance, the introduction of a legitimate reason for the possession of arms, background checks and safe storage rules. Restrictions on the possibility of taking home firearms that are used in a professional context can have a major impact.

The impact of such measures is only to a certain extent affected by ‘substitution’ (substituting the firearm for another instrument). The available research shows that in European countries where such policy initiatives have been taken, the total number of suicides and homicides has dropped. Reducing the availability of firearms can give people time to think twice in case of impulsive acts or receive help. Firearms are also very deadly instruments. When one does continue with the impulsive suicide or homicide attempt, other instruments (medication, strangling, stabbing weapons, etc.) often have less lethal outcomes."

You mean besides the fact that places that specifically do not allow guns (like the Orlando club or military bases), have still been attacked by a person with a gun?

No. I mean what I wrote. That's not it, obviously.

Beyond the handgun, more homicides in 2014 were committed with bare hands than with a rifle, shotgun, or other weapon combined; 603 to 660. That's also more deaths by nothing but what god gave you over a blunt object as well.

And that happens everywhere in the world. Unless you cut people's hands like in Saudi Arabia, people will always kill other people with their bare hands. Again, that's not the point. It seems like some people like to point to parallel issues that have nothing to do with guns instead of addressing it. So in your mind, over 10.000 homicides every year is meaningless because there are other homicides committed by other means.

Terrorists have resorted to using the every-day automobile now that they can barely get away with planting bombs.... A person in Japan killed 19 & wounded 26 people with a simple knife last year. Not only does Japan not allow guns to be owned by the public, but swords as well. This man still committed a mass attack.

Here we go again... you people surely love to bring this anecdotal point up (A guy in Japan, another in Nice, Breivik in Norway...). I'll answer the same thing again: 10.000 killed every year in the USA. It's happening every day. Japan has 500 homicides per year in total (not only gun related), so you see how relevant your point turns out to be.

Anyone with the intent on killing large groups does not need a gun & trying to ban them will not automatically deter them from the intent.

Most of homicides in the USA are not committed with the intent of killing large groups like what we saw in Las Vegas. There's a mass shooting roughly every day (affecting 4+ people) and you only need a simple pistol for that. Just as an example.

And again, I ask for the source pointing that out: that having easy access to guns has no impact (is no deterrent) on whether or not someone will kill other people.

Comparing 1 continent to another doesn't prove your point, either. As shown by the CDC over a 10-year period of 1993-2003, gun homicides declined as more people with guns showed up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ited-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.9129bc62ccba

Well, I didn't say the homicide rate was growing up. Never once.

I fail to see how comparing an entire continent to the country of the USA fails in any way, given the astonishing numbers I just gave you.
Also, you're wrong also in your anasysis of the graph. It's not "more people with guns" but "more guns per person". Completely different. In fact:

32%
The proportion of US men who said they personally owned a gun in 2015, down from 42% in 1994, according to the Harvard/Northeastern study.

12%
The proportion of US women who said they personally owned a gun in 2015, up from 9% in 1994.

If less people have guns, less homicides happen. That's been shown to be true across the world. I don't say "more people with guns, less homicides", just to be clear.

And it's a good thing that the numbers dropped, don't get me wrong. It used to be a state of war in the streets 3 or 4 decades ago. But that doesn't mean, again, the numbers are low (they look like it when you see them compared to what happened before). If you put other developed countries side by side on that same graph, you'd realize how bad it looks.

Who said anything about disarming criminals? I thought we were talking about disarming law-abiding citizens.

Well, disarming criminals would be great. And I didn't talk about disarming law-abiding citizens. I've been arguing that the easy (and in a lot of ways irresponsible) access to guns in the USA is a problem that has consequences on the everyday life of your fellow citizens and part of that spreads to other countries in the south.

I don't have the numbers, but do you know how many of the homicides are committed by individuals who up to that point were law-abiding citizens?

I saw a small interview yesterday where a doctor who dealt with victims from gun violence for over 30 years said that around 40% of the patients he dealt with had been shot by common people, not criminals. I'm aware this is anecdotal but I can't find any data on that.

 

[Dotini]

With regard to the crucial question of motive, the Sheriff says the shooter may have been radicalized, and they are investigating that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

With regard to the crucial question of motive, the Sheriff says the shooter may have been radicalized, and they are investigating that.

Given that (as posted yesterday) ISIS have claimed to have radicalised this individual it would be crazy for that detail to be omitted from an investigation. This is telling us what we already knew - and I stand by my earlier comment that this nutter is so far outside the normal ISIS profile that I'd be astonished if there was truth in that angle.

 

[Dotini]

Given that (as posted yesterday) ISIS have claimed to have radicalised this individual it would be crazy for that detail to be omitted from an investigation. This is telling us what we already knew - and I stand by my earlier comment that this nutter is so far outside the normal ISIS profile that I'd be astonished if there was truth in that angle.

Can't understand a single idea in your comment. Motivation is not a detail in a crime, it's a major element. Lacking any brain autopsy or investigation, we can't conclude anything about his mental state, "nutter" not being a great legal or medical term anyway. Don't think the Sheriff mentioned ISIS or any other potential source of radicalization. Only that he was looking into. Good for him. I hope he finds something.

 

[MustangRyan]

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco October 3 at 3:02 PM

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”


Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

From The Washington Post

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How many have you got? If it's more than ten I honestly wouldn't want you around any of my loved ones. A preoccupation with guns doesn't strike me as healthy.

About such, I have a ton of guitars to, love cars as hobby as well, collect classic games also...guess my like of various things and collecting of them makes me unhealthy eclectic. Your myopic view on people collecting guns and painting them with this judgmental stroke is quite the intellectual take. You'll really get people to take you seriously /s

 

[TetsuKobura]

About such, I have a ton of guitars to, love cars as hobby as well, collect classic games also...guess my like of various things and collecting of them makes me unhealthy eclectic. Your myopic view on people collecting guns and painting them with this judgmental stroke is quite the intellectual take. You'll really get people to take you seriously /s

Not to mention, aren't there people who decorate a wall/room in their house with guns because it looks nice?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not to mention, aren't there people who decorate a wall/room in their house with guns because it looks nice?

Haven't a clue, but I've met a few collectors with over a hundred plus guns because of the investment they're worth. These people are also typically quite rich, perhaps @hejustsits would want them on a federal watch

 

[hejustsits]

Haven't a clue, but I've met a few collectors with over a hundred plus guns because of the investment they're worth. These people are also typically quite rich, perhaps @hejustsits would want them on a federal watch

I just wouldn't want them around me or my family, as stated. Do as you wish, but don't blame me for not wanting to hang around with people who have collections of killing machines. I assure you I have very good reasons to hate guns.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I just wouldn't want them around me or my family, as stated. Do as you wish, but don't blame me for not wanting to hang around with people who have collections of killing machines. I assure you I have very good reasons to hate guns.

I doubt you do, I'd claim even the people at this event would have no reason to hate guns, rather their hate should be centered on the individual who enacted this crime. Also how can I blame you for not wanting to hang around "people who have collections of killing machines". As if they're caged wild animals that if you left unguarded would go about murdering masses unless stopped. You want to put an emotional argument on a tool rather than society that's on you, but to ever think that that is the reality of the situation, will always be wrong.

Also this is trying to slight of hand out of the argument you earlier made about how people with such a large amount should be feared.

 

[MustangRyan]

I just wouldn't want them around me or my family, as stated. Do as you wish, but don't blame me for not wanting to hang around with people who have collections of killing machines. I assure you I have very good reasons to hate guns.

I had a cousin that was brutally murdered by four guys using baseball bats in a home invasion.

I don't fear or dislike baseball bats because of this. I fear and dislike the hateful kind of people that would commit this kind of act.

If my cousin had kept a gun in his home, he might still be alive today.

As it stood, with zero guns involved on either side, he had absolutely no chance at survival.

 

[McLaren]

No. I mean what I wrote. That's not it, obviously.

You asked if there was any evidence of a criminal not caring about a gun law. There’s plenty; the fact they use it with intent to harm in the first place is evidence enough.

And that happens everywhere in the world. Unless you cut people's hands like in Saudi Arabia, people will always kill other people with their bare hands. Again, that's not the point. It seems like some people like to point to parallel issues that have nothing to do with guns instead of addressing it. So in your mind, over 10.000 homicides every year is meaningless because there are other homicides committed by other means.

It has everything to do with guns bc it’s a US statistic in a topic about US gun violence. You want to ban a weapon that contributes less to the homicide count than everyday items. If anything, the anti-gunners should start with a pistol than a rifle or shotgun they only go crazy over.

Here we go again... you people surely love to bring this anecdotal point up (A guy in Japan, another in Nice, Breivik in Norway...). I'll answer the same thing again: 10.000 killed every year in the USA. It's happening every day. Japan has 500 homicides per year in total (not only gun related), so you see how relevant your point turns out to be.

You can repeat it all you want. There’s more to the details of that number such as gang violence (which is a large part of the mass shooting hysteria).

And again, I ask for the source pointing that out: that having easy access to guns has no impact (is no deterrent) on whether or not someone will kill other people.

You’ve been shown proof enough with these attacks. If the will is there, one will do it. The “mass shootings” usually revolve around some other issue that triggers the incidents.

Well, I didn't say the homicide rate was growing up. Never once.

Nah, you just continue to tout 10,000 over and over ignoring the gun violence has dropped to begin with in the last 20 years. Homicide rates were halved per 100,000 people despite more guns being introduced into the public.

I fail to see how comparing an entire continent to the country of the USA fails in any way, given the astonishing numbers I just gave you.
Also, you're wrong also in your anasysis of the graph. It's not "more people with guns" but"more guns per person". Completely different.

You’re the one who read the graph wrong. It says guns per person with the count being .9-1.5 guns/per person. That means once the number of guns per person raised to 1 gun per person, the homicide rate per 100,000 people dropped dramatically.

You can’t have more guns per person if the amount of guns per person didn’t even reach 2 on the graph. Quoting me a statistic with no source doesn’t bare much.

If less people have guns, less homicides happen. That's been shotwn to be true across the world. I don't say "more people with guns, less homicides", just to be clear.

But not everywhere. There are other variables to be taken into consideration before making a blanket comparison.

 

[Vegard]

What type of magazine capacity would be required to sustain a 10 second burst on a bump stock modified AR-15?

I'm asking because in the videos I've seen I could hear sustained fire for roughly 10 seconds.

 

[Obelisk]

What type of magazine capacity would be required to sustain a 10 second burst on a bump stock modified AR-15?

You need to specify a rate of fire.
Edit: but assuming 400 RPM, that works backwards to 67 rounds. At 800 RPM, that equates to 134 rounds.

 

[Vegard]

You need to specify a rate of fire.

If I had that I wouldn't have to ask. I'm referring to the initial burst of fire that can be seen on the videos of the shooting.
Specifically the one where you see the scene and the concert is ongoing. Maybe you could watch the video and give an estimate?

Link.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What type of magazine capacity would be required to sustain a 10 second burst on a bump stock modified AR-15?

I'm asking because in the videos I've seen I could hear sustained fire for roughly 10 seconds.

FBI and ATF both say he had 60 to 100 rounds. So drums basically, but from the hotel picture after they blew down the door that was leaked, you see mostly 60 round extended mags. Which is not what the gun is sold with, you buy those from a third party distributor and manufacture, same with the drums.

 

[Obelisk]

If I had that I wouldn't have to ask. I'm referring to the initial burst of fire that can be seen on the videos of the shooting.
Specifically the one where you see the scene and the concert is ongoing. Maybe you could watch the video and give an estimate?

Link.

Check my edit for some estimates. I'll watch the video ASAP and get back to you, but I did read there was a lot of echoing in the area - me being deaf won't help either.

Edit:

FBI and ATF both say he had 60 to 100 rounds. So drums basically, but from the hotel picture after they blew down the door that was leaked, you see mostly 60 round extended mags. Which is not what the gun is sold with, you buy those from a third party distributor and manufacture, same with the drums.

That's referred to as a casket magazine. So basically, it's two double-stack magazines feeding into one system. This one would be about 100 rounds by the looks of it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If I had that I wouldn't have to ask. I'm referring to the initial burst of fire that can be seen on the videos of the shooting.
Specifically the one where you see the scene and the concert is ongoing. Maybe you could watch the video and give an estimate?

Link.

He told you basically what it'd have to be, he has no better idea than you on the matter. His edit gives you a better idea of where to start, listening to a video isn't going to help him tell you any better either. If that was possible they wouldn't make electronic timers that can accurately record amount of shots fired and give you a rate of fire projection.

 

[zzz_pt]

You asked if there was any evidence of a criminal not caring about a gun law. There’s plenty; the fact they use it with intent to harm in the first place is evidence enough.

This is what I asked:

Any evidence that guns have absolutely no impact on where someone will commit a crime or not? Is there any study made on that topic that confirms that criminals will do exactly the same if they have no guns but a baseball bat, a hammer, a bow and arrow, etc?

Would be great if you read what I wrote instead of coming up with a straw man.

It has everything to do with guns bc it’s a US statistic in a topic about US gun violence. You want to ban a weapon that contributes less to the homicide count than everyday items. If anything, the anti-gunners should start with a pistol than a rifle or shotgun they only go crazy over.

Where did I even mention to ban guns? Quote me on that. Everything I've been doing is acknowledging a problem and pointing to it because some people prefer to look away or reply to points I didn't make as if the problem would magically disappear.

You can repeat it all you want. There’s more to the details of that number such as gang violence (which is a large part of the mass shooting hysteria).

Yes. And gang-violence is part of the problem of gun violence. Never said it wasn't, did I? Still, innocent people die, doesn't matter if they're shot by a gang member, a crazy person or someone who was a normal individual until they flipped. Do you know how many of the 10000 deaths per year are committed by gang members? How many of the guns they use are acquired legally vs illegally? Are their victims less important because of the guy who killed them?

You’ve been shown proof enough with these attacks. If the will is there, one will do it. The “mass shootings” usually revolve around some other issue that triggers the incidents.

That's not proof whatsoever. Find me a study or some report that states that individuals are equally inclined to kill independently of owning a gun or not. I'll be waiting. Because you and others keep saying "if criminals don't have a gun they will kill some other way because they want" without any evidence to support that. Guns are specific objects to be dismissed as just some tool that some person might use to kill someone as knifes, hammers, bombs, you name it. All of those are different and claiming that individuals would do the exact same thing regardless of having one or another is completely baseless. Some might go for the knife or the poison if they don't have a gun, I doubt most of those who use a gun would do it. It's been reported and it's known that often is the case that people who use guns do it in a split second of misjudgement and don't have time to really think about what they're about to do. Because guns are perfect and quick at doing what they were meant to do - kill - without much effort. Knifes demand a whole different mental state, using your bare hands, another one, ropes another one, etc, etc. All of them have something in common: they're slower, they give you some time to regret and you need to get your "hands dirty" while doing it.

Nah, you just continue to tout 10,000 over and over ignoring the gun violence has dropped to begin with in the last 20 years. Homicide rates were halved per 100,000 people despite more guns being introduced into the public.

I didn't ignore that. No one brought it up before you and I addressed it. What are you talking about? Am I ignoring all the data that was not presented in this discussion too? lol... More guns were introduced into a very small part of the public (as I said 3% own 50% of the guns) and less citizens have guns overall. If you had every person who owns a gun going out with it at all the time, today less people would be carrying a gun than in the past. Do you think that's irrelevant?

You’re the one who read the graph wrong. It says guns per person with the count being .9-1.5 guns/per person. That means once the number of guns per person raised to 1 gun per person, the homicide rate per 100,000 people dropped dramatically.

I'm sorry? You said "more people with guns". You're wrong. Go and read what you wrote and what the graph says again please. More people with guns has nothing to do with number of guns per capita. You can have a guy buying a million guns today and if 100 people sell their guns at the same time, you'll have less people with guns but more guns per capita. Kinda basic.

You can’t have more guns per person if the amount of guns per person didn’t even reach 2 on the graph. Quoting me a statistic with no source doesn’t bare much.

What?

But not everywhere. There are other variables to be taken into consideration before making a blanket comparison.

Is there any place where if more people have guns, the gun related crime dropped? (note that I didn't say "people with more guns") Please provide a source.


___


On the topic of collecting, I have no problem with that in principle. I just think there should be more regulation and people should be legally accountable for every gun they buy/own. My own grandfather collects old weapons (guns, knives, swords, etc) and he would never hurt a fly. He never even used any of them as far as I know. He lives in Portugal where people can own guns and where the small percentage of people who own them, do it mostly for hunting.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

View attachment 677214
That's referred to as a casket magazine. So basically, it's two double-stack magazines feeding into one system. This one would be about 100 rounds by the looks of it.

I know what it is I've owned them and used them. It's better to explain the amount they hold rather than the name. They're also referred to as banana clips, extended mags, stacked mags and so on. You can also make your own pretty easy.

 

[Obelisk]

It's better to explain the amount they hold rather than the name.

This one would be about 100 rounds by the looks of it.

Just re-quoting to make sure you saw it. The misuse of the word "clip" bugs me so bad

I wasn't aware you could make them, though. Still, that was an exceptionally large casket magazine. Wonder how they didn't notice him buying it?

 

[Vegard]

@Obelisk @LMSCorvetteGT2

Thanks for the input.
I guess it was a 100 round magazine in that clip because after a few comparisons I've estimated the rate of fire to be around 600.

I'm far from an expert and just wanted to hear the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than myself.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just re-quoting to make sure you saw it. The misuse of the word "clip" bugs me so bad

I wasn't aware you could make them, though. Still, that was an exceptionally large casket magazine. Wonder how they didn't notice him buying it?

Because they're not illegal, and you can buy as many magazines as you want in one sitting. My dad would do it all the time for his competition shooting. Couldn't tell you how many CZ 75 mags he has.

 

[Obelisk]

@Obelisk @LMSCorvetteGT2

Thanks for the input.
I guess it was a 100 round magazine in that clip because after a few comparisons I've estimated the rate of fire to be around 600.

600 RPM translates to about 10 per second, so that checks out. 600 is also reasonably achievable on most platforms, and some common military rifles (certain AK variants, AN-94, etc) are set at 600. AR-15s would be around there, but I don't remember.

Also, some relevant information that might cue us in as to why he chose AR-15s:

The shooting occurred at around 400 yards, so he would've been able to fire somewhat precise shots with a good scope system (he had at least one scoped AR-15 with a bipod).

 

[TetsuKobura]

600 RPM translates to about 10 per second, so that checks out. 600 is also reasonably achievable on most platforms, and some common military rifles (certain AK variants, AN-94, etc) are set at 600. AR-15s would be around there, but I don't remember.

Also, some relevant information that might cue us in as to why he chose AR-15s:
View attachment 677216
The shooting occurred at around 400 yards, so he would've been able to fire somewhat precise shots with a good scope system (he had at least one scoped AR-15 with a bipod).

AR-15 with bumpfire stock*
Fixed.

 

[hejustsits]

I doubt you do, I'd claim even the people at this event would have no reason to hate guns, rather their hate should be centered on the individual who enacted this crime. Also how can I blame you for not wanting to hang around "people who have collections of killing machines". As if they're caged wild animals that if you left unguarded would go about murdering masses unless stopped. You want to put an emotional argument on a tool rather than society that's on you, but to ever think that that is the reality of the situation, will always be wrong.

Guns can only shoot. All they do is shoot, they serve no other function, beyond wounding and taking life. All sports they're involved in are based on that function. In my view there's nothing glorious about shooting things, whether to injure or kill. Sure, people can be skilled shooters, but I personally have little respect for people who take pride in their ability to shoot things, people or animals. I hate guns. I'm not trying to claim that it should be the global world view, but at the same time I and people like like me roll their eyes when disasters like this mass shooting occur.

Also this is trying to slight of hand out of the argument you earlier made about how people with such a large amount should be feared.

Believe me, I could not care less how other people feel about gun owners and people who have huge collections of guns, but I personally don't want to be around said gun owners.

I really don't give a **** about how other people perceive gun owners.

 

[Obelisk]

AR-15 with bumpfire stock*
Fixed.

Not just bump-fire AR-15s. The M16/M4 derivatives might be around that number, as well as auto-sear AR-15s.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Guns can only shoot. All they do is shoot, they serve no other function, beyond wounding and taking life. All sports they're involved in are based on that function. In my view there's nothing glorious about shooting things, whether to injure or kill. Sure, people can be skilled shooters, but I personally have little respect for people who take pride in their ability to shoot things, people or animals. I hate guns. I'm not trying to claim that it should be the global world view, but at the same time I and people like like me roll their eyes when disasters like this mass shooting occur.

Okay so other than being somewhat pompous in view on the subject, you have no logical reasoning to hate guns. I use them for self-protection (also have a knife for that too), hunting, and sportsman. Though you did put it best, they shoot a projectile, for intended purposes. They are not first and foremost in a free civilized society intended on killing people. Those would be the people who buy said tools, and since it's illegal to kill people, they're using said tools for the wrong purpose hence it being a criminal act. Your hate of an inanimate object is strange.

Believe me, I could not care less how other people feel about gun owners and people who have huge collections of guns, but I personally don't want to be around said gun owners.

How would you ever know? You could have very well shook hands, ate a meal, had a conversation or whatever else with a person with multiple guns. And carried on just fine with them. And yet because they have a collection of a certain object you disregard them...what a myopic close minded world view you cater to.

I really don't give a **** about how other people perceive gun owners.

Then what's the point of posting, to just say your chat/blog like commentary and not be bothered? That great you don't like guns or people who own them. Do you have something of worth to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Vegard]

600 RPM translates to about 10 per second, so that checks out. 600 is also reasonably achievable on most platforms, and some common military rifles (certain AK variants, AN-94, etc) are set at 600. AR-15s would be around there, but I don't remember.

Also, some relevant information that might cue us in as to why he chose AR-15s:
View attachment 677216
The shooting occurred at around 400 yards, so he would've been able to fire somewhat precise shots with a good scope system (he had at least one scoped AR-15 with a bipod).

The AK 47 was one of the guns I used for reference.