Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[stonesfan129]

Or, you know, they'll just keep using guns.

Or like we see in Europe, cars.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

First, my sincerest condolences to those affected by this tragedy. I'm just coming into this thread now and I've not read the full 6 pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating a point that's already been made; I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

My opinion on the prevention of these sort of incidents is that yes, stricter control over firearms and ammunition is needed to make it harder for people to obtain weapons which have been designed specifically to kill people (rather than for hunting or sport) at some range. I'm not knowledgable on guns so I'm not going to pretend to know how to classify these weapons, though assault weapons seems like a suitable term despite its political baggage. However, I believe that targeting guns is simply targeting a symptom and not the cause. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, people can find other ways of killing other people. Few are quite as effective and easy to execute as shooting into a crowd, but it's not a hard thing to do if someone is really set on carrying out a terrorist attack. The issue is that these people exist in the first place. I personally feel that proper mental healthcare is a solid first step in beginning to reduce the frequency of these attacks in relation to other nations. By taking a three-pronged approach of A) doing a better job of educating people properly so that they can think critically and actually fight against propaganda that may promote such extremist action, B) providing better mental healthcare that is more accessible and changing the perception of mental health issues in the US so that people who do need help are given support by others and encouraged to take advantage of the professional help available, and C) reducing the ease of access to deadly weapons for mentally ill or extremist individuals in particular and the general public in general. I don't think that gun control alone is a solution which will work, although gun control should still be part of the solution.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

I'm agree 100%

 

[zzz_pt]

That is what people are saying (ban all guns). If you ban all the guns then criminals will just turn to whatever other means they have to commit a crime. Calling for a gun ban is ignorance at its finest.

Again, not me. And you replied to me as if I had said that. If you prefer to ignore the problem and attack a straw man, be my guest.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I'm agree 100%

No you don't! You literally said earlier we should ban all guns! That is nothing like the opinion you "agree" with.

 

[stonesfan129]

Again, not me. And you replied to me as if I had said that. If you prefer to ignore the problem and attack a straw man, be my guest.

OK, let me correct - this is what the Democratic Party and most of their supporters are saying. I really don't care, I have no dog in this fight as I sold all my guns years ago. I just don't think banning all the guns is the solution.

 

[Obelisk]

Now to add to some more drama.
Unconfirmed reports of an Active shooter at University of Southern California.

Whoa whoa whoa.

What's going on now?

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

No you don't! You literally said earlier we should ban all guns! That is nothing like the opinion you "agree" with.

No I'm never say that. I'm say ban semi automatic and automatic rifles.

 

[TJ13]

Whoa whoa whoa.

What's going on now?

Had an unconfirmed report of an active shooter at USC.
Has been dismissed.

 

[Danoff]

So that types of attack is harder to stop, that needs undercovered intelligence.

It took me a while to figure out what you could possibly be saying with this statement. What you meant is that legislation would be effective at stopping mass killings involving guns... which is literally not what happened in this particular instance (legislation against the gun used failed to prevent it from being used). Again, this event does not support your conclusions, so I can't figure out why you'd put them in this thread.

Here's my rough translation of your statement above:

This type of attack is easier to stop, just pass legislation.

 

[stonesfan129]

..

 

[MustangRyan]

Had an unconfirmed report of an active shooter at USC.
Has been dismissed.

Yup.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

It took me a while to figure out what you could possibly be saying with this statement. What you meant when you said that is that legislation would be effective at stopping mass killings involving guns... which is literally not what happened in this particular instance (legislation against the gun used failed to prevent it from being used). Again, this event does not support your conclusions, so I can't figure out why you'd put them in this thread.

It's not about one event. It's about the big picture.

 

[Danoff]

It's not about one event. It's about the big picture.

I totally agree.

 

[stonesfan129]

.

 

[Carbon_6]

Like everything these days, it's always a multitude of factors that add up to a singular event, but it's too convenient to target just one and hope it solves everything.

You're never going to solve the problem until you deal with those that helped to create it in the first place.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

https://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi-so...a-literature-photos-taken-in-middle-east.html

This guy was another left wing nut. They found antifa literature in there (he was also spotted at an antifa rally previously) and toured the middle east. Maybe instead of blaming the second amendment, they should be blaming anti-Trumper rhetoric.

The news is lying. FBI HRT found Antifa literature in the hotel room and the woman toured the middle east (foreign connection?)

This thread is already going downhill rapidly, don't make it even worse by bringing stuff in from conspiracy theory sites. I can't find credible evidence to support any of this.

 

[MustangRyan]

The news is lying. FBI HRT found Antifa literature in the hotel room.

What is the most reputable source on this info?

 

[stonesfan129]

.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is a rare situation where someone who knew what he was doing and had malicious intent decided to take multiple innocent lives. As a matter of fact, this guy probably picked the hotel he did just because he knew return fire (people shooting back at him) would cause unwanted civilian casualties. Think about it. 32nd floor of a busy hotel, in two of the hundreds of windows around that part of the building. How many other rooms were occupied? Also think about this: A pistol cannot hit 400 yards. A rifle can. He was sniping people from 400 yards away.

This has happened before.

Another act, where the user had illegal ownership of said weapon...wow, criminals killing people which is already illegal, by obtaining a weapon illegally or where one should have never been given. It's almost as if many of these tragedies are because of the person foremost.

 

[Johnnypenso]

.

No, seriously, what is your most reputable source?

 

[CTznOfTime]

.

Interesting point you make.

Here are three more...

 

[ryzno]

That's the sad part, you need a gun to defend from a gun, in countries with no guns, you don't need a gun to defend from a fist or bat.

A gun is useful against a knife or machete and a well placed hit with a bat can be deadly and a person can be beat to death with fists and feet.
That's all I have to say.

 

[TenEightyOne]

4. The tracks ruin the road.

In the UK any private tank over five tons has to have rubber tracks for the road, in fact it's recommended for under five tons too. For obvious reasons.

Tanks are hard to relocate, moving one to an urban area would raise suspicions. They're hard to drive and change direction.

I've driven a tank, any fool can do it. We're not talking about prize-winning off-roading here, just navigating from A to B and driving into somewhere really busy.

4. The tracks ruin the road.

In the UK any private tank over five tons has to have rubber tracks for the road, in fact it's recommended for under five tons too. For obvious reasons.

They're not particularly fast (especially those that are the hands of enthusiasts). Some models are relatively inexpensive but difficult to maintain.

Doesn't need to be fast, needs to be able to smash through the obstacles that protect people from trucks (like buildings, for example). You need to go on a few tank days (plenty of those around) to learn the ropes, buy a tank off Milweb, pick a target, buy a loooot of diesel.

Anyway, back to the topic... the BBC reported that the gunman's father was once on the FBI most wanted list. Is that being reported elsewhere? I've spent all night watching SA-80 practice, ironically enough.

 

[Danoff]

We go through this every time.

When a mass shooting occurs in the US, a parade of people descend into the thread to denounce the US for allowing citizens to legally own guns. This is done without regard to any other events of any kind happening anywhere else in the world, and without care as to the particulars of the event in the US, and even (often) before information is known about the event. The folks that wish to explain that it is the US Bill of Rights that is the problem see each one of these events as proof-positive of their position, and come here to explain that this time, there is no denying it.

Each time they are met with the same set of (mostly) principled responses, because the event changes nothing. Why would anyone think that the latest mass shooting will be reacted to differently than the previous? All of the same principles apply. All of the same reasoning applies. The US Bill of Rights and the principles upon which it was drafted are not utilitarian. Unlike most of the rest of the world.

You might be coming here perplexed that the latest deaths do not change positions of those who value the right to bear arms... but we are not performing some calculation based on how many deaths we can prevent. The goal of our laws is not to minimize casualties, it is to preserve human rights. The Bill of Rights does not attempt to serve the greater good, or calculate whether some people must make a sacrifice to their freedom for the good of the rest - it codifies the rights of the individual.

So don't be surprised when you get a seemingly stubborn response when you think that the latest tragedy is a tipping point and find that there are people who are not pushed off of their principles. Those principles are not utilitarian. They are not based on a calculus of human lives. They are based on what power you justifiably have over other human beings, and that is all. And yes, it is worth dying for. Utilitarianism is an immoral view of the world.

I am not a ward of the state. I take personal responsibility for my actions, my well-being and the well-being of my family. Not everyone can learn mixed-martial arts to defend themselves with their hands or a bat. But we can all learn how to use a gun effectively and safely, and we can afford it. If some tragedy in the future (or this one) is abused as a political tipping-point to deny people their ability to take ultimate responsibility for their lives, it will become a far more tragic event with millions of victims.

 

[McLaren]

http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass...over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017

Yes there are instances of violence around the world that we can't solve, but as I said in the US there are mass shootings pretty much every. single. day.

This is such an over-dramatized argument because it fails to actually acknowledge the details of each event unless you dig into them yourself. I went through the first 3 pages and noticed Chicago popped up regularly every time. And they're nearly all drive-bys which likely implies it's gang violence.

So that types of attack is harder to stop, that needs undercovered intelligence. These types of assault weapon attacks though... can be made easier to stop thanks to a well deserved ban.

It's illegal to modify an AR15 into a fully automatic weapon. Tell me why didn't this old dude understand he wasn't supposed to do that? Laws are made to be followed.

 

[huskeR32]

If he can't shoot 50 people to death, what's to stop him from getting a knife and stabbing people?

C'mon.

If guns and knives are completely equivalent in terms of how quickly you can kill, and how many you can kill, then we'd equip our armies with knives and save a bunch of money.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I've driven a tank, any fool can do it. We're not talking about prize-winning off-roading here, just navigating from A to B and driving into somewhere really busy.
.

And I've directed a few around Bovington and elsewhere. Anyone that thinks taking a tank from a field and into an urban environment is easy will soon come a'cropper.

It's illegal to modify an AR15 into a fullyautomatic weapon. Tell me why didn't this old dude understand he wasn't supposed to do that? Laws are made to be followed.

Bump-Fire Stocks are somewhat legal? And high capacity drum magazines?

 

[TenEightyOne]

And I've directed a few around Bovington and elsewhere. Anyone that thinks taking a tank from a field and into an urban environment is easy will soon come a'cropper.


Bump-Fire Stocks are somewhat legal? And high capacity drum magazines?

Like... run somebody over?

 

[Grayfox]

This is such an over-dramatized argument because it fails to actually acknowledge the details of each event unless you dig into them yourself. I went through the first 3 pages and noticed Chicago popped up regularly every time. And they're nearly all drive-bys which likely implies it's gang violence.


It's illegal to modify an AR15 into a fully automatic weapon. Tell me why didn't this old dude understand he wasn't supposed to do that? Laws are made to be followed.

If automatics are illegal why not make semi automatic assault rifles illegal too?
Since the AR15 is so easy to modify ban its sale and ownership, I am sure there are some guns americans cant get hold of as they're under the banner of military use only

I personally can see the need for anyone beside police, army, ect to have assault rifles.
If you want to hunt use a bolt action rifle/lever action.

 

[Danoff]

If automatics are illegal why not make semi automatic assault rifles illegal too?
Since the AR15 is so easy to modify ban its sale and ownership, I am sure there are some guns americans cant get hold of as they're under the banner of military use only

I personally can see the need for anyone beside police, army, ect to have assault rifles.
If you want to hunt use a bolt action rifle/lever action.

You must have missed the part where I explained that you can legally purchase an automatic rifle in NV. You can also legally purchase a semi-automatic rifle in NV. What you cannot do, which is apparently what this guy did, is modify your semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one. So of the three options, the illegal one is what the guy did.