Las Vegas (1 Viewer)

scott-atkinson · Oct 4, 2017

Mike375 said:
Many years ago in central Australia a semi trailer driver went to a motel with his wife and kid. Obviously problems had been brewing as a big domestic fight. He had no gun so went outside to his semi and then drove it through his room and of course it went through the rest of the motel.

With a gun he would have killed his wife, kid and himself. With the semi he also killed ten others.

Our second biggest massacre was a bloke who set fire to a packed night club. From memory he killed in the high 20s.

For mass killing the gun is not the best. You should hope that the day does not come when the gun is not available anymore and more deadly means will be used.

As to the gun from memory it is not that long ago that a bloke in Norway killed 69?? people. So not just America.

Lastly, we should being seeing mass shootings every day in Switzerland given their gun situation.

And a bloke with a history of Depression flew a plane into the Alps killing over 200 hundred, he had the easy means of doing that as he was a co-pilot..

Had he been steel worker for instance it would have taken a lot more effort to commit mass murder..

The whole point of this argument is that you are never going to stop somebody intent on harming others, but why make it as easy as possible by giving them access to Semi Automatic Assault rifles and then allow them to buy something legally off the intent that turns it into an automatic rapid fire rifle....

Madness...

Mike375 · Oct 4, 2017

Minty said:
But I presume they don't use a fully automatic assault rifle for that purpose?

Of course not because they are extremely difficult to own, at least legally.

Even if they were available they would be a very poor choice and if you knew about guns you would know why. Your comment "Or do they like their game pre-minced? " demonstrates your lack of knowledge and experience.

If you fired a full auto at a man or deer etc. at 200 yards it would be the first shot it fired that would do the job and rest of the shots would miss.

Full auto is best for either very very close range or for a large number of people in a group at longer distance.

A minute of angle (1/60th of a degree) is 1.047" at 100 yards, say an inch. Thus one degree is 5 feet at 100 yards, 10 feet at 200 yards. If was on a bench rest aiming at a target at 200 yards and then moved the rife so the sights moved 10 feet off the target, if you were watching me it is doubtful you would notice the amount I moved the rifle. So now consider a full auto jumping around as it fires.

scott-atkinson · Oct 4, 2017

The_Doc_Man said:
I am sorry that some people think that USA gun rights advocates wear myopic or tinted glasses. But our problem isn't guns.

I have to wonder if the issue is that in a world of ever-increasing visibility of threats to our survival en masse from issues like global climate change; racial tension leading to riots; economic inequality driving the other tensions; sudden massive migration of Islamic people leaving a violent homeland; and all of it plastered in our faces from sensation-mongering news media, that people's frustration level has just reached a breaking point.

The guns are one means of acting out, but riots and hatred seem to be increasing no matter how the worst of those frustrated people choose to act out. Idiots driving cars into crowded streets at speed? Why use 750 grains of lead when you can drive nearly a ton of steel?

You are right this is a much bigger issue than simply Gun Control, whilst there is a massive Gap between the Richest in society and the Poorest you are going to get these tensions and these will manifest themselves in atrocities such as this whether it be by Gun or Car or Bomb...

Sadly, this is only going to get worse as the Rich get Richer and the Poor get poorer...

There was an opportunity to address some of this balance back in 2008 when the world should have let the Financial world go into Freefall and let the Banks fall, but instead the Rich couldn't let that happen so they bailed them out with Tax Payers money, and then forced Austerity onto the masses effectively blaming them for the issue when it was Corporate Greed that caused the issue and the Rich trying to get Richer...

Sadly history will repeat itself and probably in the next 5 to 10 years....

Mike375 · Oct 4, 2017

scott-atkinson said:
And a bloke with a history of Depression flew a plane into the Alps killing over 200 hundred, he had the easy means of doing that as he was a co-pilot..

Had he been steel worker for instance it would have taken a lot more effort to commit mass murder..

The whole point of this argument is that you are never going to stop somebody intent on harming others, but why make it as easy as possible by giving them access to Semi Automatic Assault rifles and then allow them to buy something legally off the intent that turns it into an automatic rapid fire rifle....

Madness...

I assume that you are aware that if an American dies by a gun shot the chances of it being as a result of a mass shooting is virtually zero.

But there are many factors. For example, I was born in 1948 and literally grew up with guns because my father was a keen shooter. In the 1960s and 1970s in Australia you buy a gun just like you buy a bottle of milk. No background checks, nothing. However, we never had the shootings. So what changed?

At the end of the day there will always be debates on whether there should be gov't intervention in 1000s of areas, not just guns.

People like myself would prefer freedom from gov't and the negatives that brings as opposed to gov't intervention and the negatives that brings. It is really that simple.

Minty · Oct 4, 2017

@Mike - I was being pretty facetious tbh. I fully (sic) appreciate that any automatic weapon let loose, is like throwing bullets vaguely in the general direction you thought you were pointing.

It was more the point that, as you have said, even semi automatics are not really considered a legitimate requirement for genuine "Hunting". So why make them available?

Mike375 · Oct 4, 2017

Minty said:
@Mike - I was being pretty facetious tbh. I fully (sic) appreciate that any automatic weapon let loose, is like throwing bullets vaguely in the general direction you thought you were pointing.

It was more the point that, as you have said, even semi automatics are not really considered a legitimate requirement for genuine "Hunting". So why make them available?

You are wrong about semi autos and hunting......depending on the hunting.

For example, in Australia (before they were banned) a 22 rim fire semi auto was the best for rabbits and semi auto centre fires for mobs of pigs.

Of course if the shooter is into extreme range shooting and having a go at the rabbit at 500 yards plus then an extremely accurate bolt action is the only way.

Vassago · Oct 4, 2017

But I think that we can all agree that removing restrictions on mentally unstable people in no way will help the situation. What was Trump thinking?

Uncle Gizmo · Oct 4, 2017

Vassago said:
..... What was Trump thinking?

He's probably thinking "Christ I'm mentally unstable and I want to keep my guns!

Uncle Gizmo · Oct 4, 2017

Brilliant Article Here:-

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-white-privlege-las-vegas-stephen-paddock/

Brilliant article here. Basically if you're a black man, a Muslim, or belong to some sort of easily identifiable group, then your group is at fault. However if you're a white man then you're a "lone wolf".. God forbid that you could Tar the white culture with the same brush as Muslims, terrorists and the like. Does this mean that next time I'm out and about and see an American in his tribal dress... You know the peak-cap, t-shirt, shorts, should I run away in fear because he's associated with white male lone gunmen and by association a terrorist?

Mike375 · Oct 4, 2017

Guns aside, where America is great is that even with a 300 million plus population it is very regulation free in all areas. For example, the sorts of cars you can get road registered.

Australia is terrible. With cars the top Caterham 7 can't be registered and we are probably the only country in the world with that situation.

I suspect our problem is virtually the whole population lives on a narrow strip on the East Coast from Melbourne through to Brisbane and then in Adelaide and Perth. Almost 50% of population is in Sydney and Melbourne.

America on the other hand, while about the same size as Australia is a much better piece of dirt and climate and so you have so many Americans living in rural based towns across the country.

I have had a very keen and life long interest in the space program. I met Eugene Cernan, last bloke on the moon in the late 70s when he came to Australia. I had about 30 minutes with him. I was only 21 when Apollo 11 did its thing and about a year away from getting married. I think if Apollo would have been 6 or 7 years later I would have gone to see it and would have been in a position to become an American citizen.

Greatest country in the world. If not for the Americans I would be typing this in Japanese.

We had our last Federal election July last year and both parties are hopeless. I voted informal by printing Donald Trump on the paper, drew a box and put a 1 in the box and drew a line through the rest

AccessBlaster · Oct 4, 2017

I would think having citizens medical records in the hands of government officials FBI, NSA could be tricky, with HIPAA laws and just from a general libertarian point of view. I know there are a few libertarian's on this site.

Mark_ · Oct 4, 2017

AccessBlaster said:
I would think having citizens medical records in the hands of government officials FBI, NSA could be tricky, with HIPAA laws and just from a general libertarian point of view. I know there are a few libertarian's on this site.

I also aspire to live where each has as much liberty and equality as possible. Too bad those who wish to shackle others because of their own fears and insecurities often propose restrictions under the guise of "For the greater good". Seldom do they address real problems with their "Solutions" though.

If this was an attempt to really find and solve an issue, the first focus would not be "Take the guns" but "Find and cure the problem". Claiming it is easy as justification is an "Easy" solution to difficult problems. Timothy McVeigh spent the time and effort to truly be horrific. Stephen Paddock had been gathering weapons "Since the 80's", at least according to the news.

Working to identify those who would do these types of actions should be the focus, not deciding "Well, some died so we'd better take things away from everyone". By the same reasoning no vehicles would travel roads in the UK since the death count for 2016 was over 1,700.

Mike375 · Oct 4, 2017

Mark_ said:
I also aspire to live where each has as much liberty and equality as possible. Too bad those who wish to shackle others because of their own fears and insecurities often propose restrictions under the guise of "For the greater good". Seldom do they address real problems with their "Solutions" though.

If this was an attempt to really find and solve an issue, the first focus would not be "Take the guns" but "Find and cure the problem". Claiming it is easy as justification is an "Easy" solution to difficult problems. Timothy McVeigh spent the time and effort to truly be horrific. Stephen Paddock had been gathering weapons "Since the 80's", at least according to the news.

Working to identify those who would do these types of actions should be the focus, not deciding "Well, some died so we'd better take things away from everyone". By the same reasoning no vehicles would travel roads in the UK since the death count for 2016 was over 1,700.

Agree.

The world (and especially Australia) is full of.....if it saves one life, saves one investment, saves one "whatever".... then it is worth it.

The_Doc_Man · Oct 5, 2017

scott-atkinson,

That bailout of the banks in 2008 was the biggest crock I ever saw. You know what would have happened if the banks HAD failed?

Let's take it as a given fact that stock markets lead to stock "bubbles" because of the highly speculative nature of the stock market. So if a big bank had failed, most of the depositors would not have been hurt because of the Federal Depositors Insurance Corp., essentially insurance for your bank account. I say "most" because most people's bank account balances are under the limits imposed by FDIC. So they wouldn't be hurt much.

The stock bubble would have burst, so stockholders would have lost tremendous paper value but the odds are that they didn't buy that stock at its inflated price. So their losses are just a big tax write-off but not a loss of real value. And you know who had the most to lose? Why, it was the bank's officers who ran the damned bank into the ground, because a lot of their deferred compensation is in the form of bank stock (the theory being that they would hold a vested interest in having the bank succeed). So the people who made the bank go on the verge of failing would have the most to lose - except that they got bailed out.

The employees of the bank below the level of vice president would not lose their jobs for the most part because the bank would get bought out by some other institution that wanted to get at the bank's assets. When they bought the bank, they would want to keep the customers so they would have tried to keep things as the were before the bubble burst. And that meant changing the signs on the bank, honoring the prior bank's checks, employing people who would be familiar to the customer base...

So the banks would still be there and open for business; the employees would be more or less the same (allowing for a little bit of house cleaning); your money would still be there and available for use; and a different name would appear as the signature on the next annual stockholders' summary. Some greedy bank execs would be out of a job and their stock (that they themselves ruined) would have crashed in value.

So who gets hurt? Those who speculated in that bank's stock in the first place and the ones who ran the company into the ground. We should have let the bloody banks fall flat on their bloody noses.

AnthonyGerrard · Oct 5, 2017

Mark_ said:
Working to identify those who would do these types of actions should be the focus, not deciding "Well, some died so we'd better take things away from everyone". By the same reasoning no vehicles would travel roads in the UK since the death count for 2016 was over 1,700.

Mental Health can at least were appropriate have issues for your licence if you arent safe for yourself and the wider public. Would seem a sensible way to proceed with guns too, but I dont know what requirements there are in the US on that front.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/fitness-to-drive/#.WdX0GcZryUl

scott-atkinson · Oct 5, 2017

The_Doc_Man said:
scott-atkinson,

That bailout of the banks in 2008 was the biggest crock I ever saw. You know what would have happened if the banks HAD failed?

Let's take it as a given fact that stock markets lead to stock "bubbles" because of the highly speculative nature of the stock market. So if a big bank had failed, most of the depositors would not have been hurt because of the Federal Depositors Insurance Corp., essentially insurance for your bank account. I say "most" because most people's bank account balances are under the limits imposed by FDIC. So they wouldn't be hurt much.

The stock bubble would have burst, so stockholders would have lost tremendous paper value but the odds are that they didn't buy that stock at its inflated price. So their losses are just a big tax write-off but not a loss of real value. And you know who had the most to lose? Why, it was the bank's officers who ran the damned bank into the ground, because a lot of their deferred compensation is in the form of bank stock (the theory being that they would hold a vested interest in having the bank succeed). So the people who made the bank go on the verge of failing would have the most to lose - except that they got bailed out.

The employees of the bank below the level of vice president would not lose their jobs for the most part because the bank would get bought out by some other institution that wanted to get at the bank's assets. When they bought the bank, they would want to keep the customers so they would have tried to keep things as the were before the bubble burst. And that meant changing the signs on the bank, honoring the prior bank's checks, employing people who would be familiar to the customer base...

So the banks would still be there and open for business; the employees would be more or less the same (allowing for a little bit of house cleaning); your money would still be there and available for use; and a different name would appear as the signature on the next annual stockholders' summary. Some greedy bank execs would be out of a job and their stock (that they themselves ruined) would have crashed in value.

So who gets hurt? Those who speculated in that bank's stock in the first place and the ones who ran the company into the ground. We should have let the bloody banks fall flat on their bloody noses.

I completely agree with you, instead of bailing them out and then forcing cuts in living standards on the poorest in society to pay for the bail out...

scott-atkinson · Oct 5, 2017

AnthonyGerrard said:
Mental Health can at least were appropriate have issues for your licence if you arent safe for yourself and the wider public. Would seem a sensible way to proceed with guns too, but I dont know what requirements there are in the US on that front.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/fitness-to-drive/#.WdX0GcZryUl

Having some kind of Mental Health checks, Background Criminal checks, and dare I say it checks on Internet search history should be mandatory before you are allowed to buy Rapid Fire High powered Weapons

Also the purchasing of 'Bung Stocks' to convert a Semi to and Auto should be made illegal..

dan-cat · Oct 5, 2017

Mark_ said:
Working to identify those who would do these types of actions should be the focus, not deciding "Well, some died so we'd better take things away from everyone". By the same reasoning no vehicles would travel roads in the UK since the death count for 2016 was over 1,700.

These false arguments are basically why nothing gets done. To answer with a single word: MITIGATION.

Measures like restricting magazine size, stricter back-ground checks etc etc are NOT the equivalent to banning ALL cars. Because these mitigating proposals are always incorrectly responded to as the thin end of the wedge no response and thus no progress is made at all.

You live in a regulated world. You don't get to choose the maximum speed you drive through a residential area. But you get to drive through them. These are restrictions to mitigate traffic accidents in response to road deaths. Exactly the same principle should apply to gun ownership.

AccessBlaster · Oct 5, 2017

scott-atkinson said:
Having some kind of Mental Health checks, Background Criminal checks, and dare I say it checks on Internet search history should be mandatory before you are allowed to buy Rapid Fire High powered Weapons..

And if the guy in Vegas passed your standard, then what? Grant the gun purchase? Or just more rules?

dan-cat · Oct 5, 2017

AccessBlaster said:
And if the guy in Vegas passed your standard, then what? Grant the gun purchase? Or just more rules?

You may as well argue that traffic lights are useless because an accident was caused by an individual that jumped a red light.

Las Vegas (1 Viewer)

I'm with the Witch.......

Registered User.

I'm with the Witch.......

Registered User.

AWF VIP

Registered User.

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Nifty Access Guy

Nifty Access Guy

Registered User.

Registered User.

Longboard on the internet

Registered User.

Immoderate Moderator

Registered User.

I'm with the Witch.......

I'm with the Witch.......

Registered User.

Registered User.

Registered User.

Users who are viewing this thread