Las Vegas (1 Viewer)

dan-cat said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well in Australia that has been the case and the stuff gets worse each year.

Actually if community safety was the goal then some of the stuff, especially in Western Australia is just the opposite.

Non shooters in Australia think it is just about banned semi autos and military style etc. However, that is not the case, far from it unfortunately.

Of course it does generate a lot of employment in the gov't and it grows each year.

In some states of Australia you can't own the more powerful rifles unless you can justify because you are shooting buffalo. However, I would say across the whole world there would be at most a handful of illegal shooting with the powerful stuff....probably a couple of road signs...maybe

Another ridiculous one. In some states you cant own a 338 Lapua because powerful military sniper rifle. However, the case capacity 338s are OK and they are the ones that also used for target shooting from 1500 to 3000 yards and beyond. However, the gov't have no idea what they are doing. It is quite staggering the lack of knowledge in both Firearms Registry and police ballistics. When you get to some of the more "exotic" stuff" it is like talking to a non gun owner.

In short the thin edge of the wedge or the slippery slope exists and exists big time, at least with guns.

One other point. If you eliminate all mass shootings in America, which from memory is 4 or more people.....guess by what percentage gun deaths in America will be decreased. You can look it up yourself and when you do you will see how futile all this stuff is.

Violent crime is down in America. It has been decreasing since the 1980's. Why? There are a few reasons that analyst point to, and probably not one single reason, but a combination of factors. None of that is relevant to this discussion except to point out that Americans are safer now than they have been in the past. Our society is less violent now than it was 30 years ago.

It seems that mass-shootings, however, are on the rise (but this is just a anecdotal observation - someone correct me if I am wrong).

Why?

This is a horrific event, but I don't think it is about violence to the shooter. We are all talking about this shooter - just what he wanted. We will talk about him for years (decades) to come. Just what he wants us to do. Why? Why does he want to shock in this way? Why does he need us to talk about him? "Bad press is better than no press"?

What will keep these nuts from murdering as many as they can? I can't help but think that they are all wanting us to talk about them. They all want to go out in a blaze of gun fire and horrify the world.

Don't give them what they want (and yet, here I am doing the exact opposite). I can't help to wonder if these mass-shootings would decrease if they were not covered in the mainstream media. If a shooter knows that the news will not cover his actions and no-one will talk about it, will he still do it? What would he do instead? I know a press black-out would be pretty much impossible - so we need to figure out why they want to do something like this. Why do they need the world to talk about them?

Gun control discussion is just a silly distraction that politicians use to get votes, power, and money. Never mind the true reason why something happened. Both sides of the issue are getting rich each time there is a shooting.

AccessBlaster said:

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

Click to expand...

Any process will never be 100% effective 100% of the time, and the jury is still out on the motives of the Vegas Shooter, he may very well have passed all the checks, but I doubt buying a Bung Stock to turn a Semi into an Auto would pass an Internet History search check if that was one of the criteria...

Did anyone see old Trump on the telly.

My god, what empty words he came out with. A robot has more feeling. Of course, he was secretly thanking his false American god that the NRA club had already bolstered his campaign fund to the tune of 30 million dollars.
Now it's payback time, so he will do nothing and casually forget the 59 dead and over 500 wounded just as most gun toting Americans will. You can tell that easily by the comments on this thread.

Oh, and Naughtical whatsyourname, thanks for the uncalled for, ill mannered birthday wishes.

Col

ColinEssex said:

Did anyone see old Trump on the telly.

Now it's payback time, so he will do nothing and casually forget the 59 dead and over 500 wounded just as most gun toting Americans will. You can tell that easily by the comments on this thread.


Col

Click to expand...

I will be thinking of all the people killed a(nd their families) on the road, cancer victims, other shootings etc. and etc. and etc. from across the world that have died since last Sunday American time.......you know, the ones that don't make the news.

ColinEssex said:

Oh, and Naughtical whatsyourname, thanks for the uncalled for, ill mannered birthday wishes.

Click to expand...

Ill-mannered?!? It wasn't meant that way, I had hoped it would be taken with some humor. I didn't take you for the sensitive type...

scott-atkinson,

Down side to "requiring mental health checks" is if we use the same rules as for driving, it requires voluntary exam initiated by the individual first, then they can be told by their health care provider who they need to notify. If they choose not relate this then no one would know, just as if they had never seen a mental health care provider. More important, there is no mandatory “Mental health screening” prior to asking the states permission to drive…

I could see an argument that anyone requesting ANY position where their mental abilities would be suspect would need an in-depth exam by a reputable mental health provider, but I've a feeling no politician would EVER agree to this. After all how many elected officials would be diagnosed with issues (narcissism, sociopathy, ect…) that SHOULD disqualify them from office?

Mike375,

For the US, most deaths are from handguns, not rifles. Removing all rifles from private hands would reduce deaths by almost 30% of what removing knives would. The vast majority of firearm related deaths are by pistol. But politicians still want to concentrate on rifles for some reason. More important, in areas where pistols are highly regulate or banned (say Chicago) deaths by handguns still vastly exceed deaths by all longarms. Something about those who are willing to kill also having little regard for laws…

The big difference between using a rifle vs. a pistol (and even more reason to have some sort of ban on large caliber pistols). You have to be close (distance) to the person you want to harm with a pistol (unless you are a really good shot) and you tend to know the person you are intending to shot (spouses and other family members generally are targets). Where as a rifle (with a scope) you can shot someone (or several people) from a great distance making it more impersonal.

This all boils down to the old Yale law of animal behavior - as it applies to people.

You can take two animals of identical genetics, raise them carefully in identical environments, feed them and care for them in identical ways. You can then place those two animals in a room full of option actions. The two animals will do as they damned well please, experiment be dashed.

The point is, the genie has been out of that bottle for so long that there is no wishing her back in. Traffic lights are useful for the sentient drivers of the world, but most accidents near a traffic light in fact ARE caused by the individual who did not properly heed the light - or the other nearby drivers.

I don't need an assault rifle that is enabled for operation at 180 or 240 or 300 rounds per minute fire rate. But then I'm more of a sniper than a sprayer anyway. The point is that the 2nd amendment says that if we are to be able to defend our country against threats at the level where a militia has to be raised, having guns allows us to do so. But the threats we would face HAVE such advanced weapons that it would be pointless if we didn't have them, too. It is a never-ending escalation and there ARE inimical forces out there that WOULD attack the USA if they thought they had half a chance.

I am blessed - and cursed - by the ability to see both sides of an argument. Which is one reason why the last presidential election was so painful for me. But I digress. The gun madness allows things like the Las Vegas tragedy to occur. But the availability of guns is not a trivial issue. There is the old adage about "two sides to every story." I wish this was only two-sided, but it has so many facets that sometimes I lose count.

Do you know the most dangerous situation in the world? It occurs when you have an absolutely one-sided superiority over all who would attack you. Because the "champ" ALWAYS has the target on his/her back. You can be sure that the arms race has started and either your foes WILL attack in hopes of overrunning you to take away your superiority; or they WILL strive to surpass your abilities so that you won't be superior any more. That is the nature of the human animal.

kevlray said:

The big difference between using a rifle vs. a pistol (and even more reason to have some sort of ban on large caliber pistols). You have to be close (distance) to the person you want to harm with a pistol (unless you are a really good shot) and you tend to know the person you are intending to shot (spouses and other family members generally are targets). Where as a rifle (with a scope) you can shot someone (or several people) from a great distance making it more impersonal.

Click to expand...

Most people who are killed by firearms (outside of war) are killed by someone they know and most are killed at close range. Very few are killed by long range fire or by someone they do not know.

The shooting in Las Vegas is not the norm. We can all be thankful of that.

I liked the safe bit!

Vassago said:

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?

Click to expand...

The relevant response to this is here. Seems some people think dyslexia would be grounds to prevent one from owning a firearm. Myself, I'm very much in favor of protecting the rights of all, including those with disabilities.

It is interesting to compare Australia and New Zealand.

Mass shootings in both countries are clustered in the 80s and 90s.

In 1996 Australia introduced the gun laws but New Zealand did not. Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more victims. Note that after 1997 Australia had one in 2014 but NZ has had none.

The table below is from the gun control group and Philip Alpers is extreme anti gun.

In Australia they have nearly all been in Victoria and NSW, which means Melbourne and Sydney, the two very big cities in Australia.

https://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5902-alpers-australia-nz-mass-shootings-1987-2015/file

One question perhaps one of you gun carrying killers can answer.

Why didn't the gunman (or any others) use a silencer? Or is that only used in films and doesn't exist in real life.

Col

NauticalGent said:

Ill-mannered?!? It wasn't meant that way, I had hoped it would be taken with some humor. I didn't take you for the sensitive type...

Click to expand...

I suppose as you are American, one has to expect subtlety and good manners are somewhat alien to you.

Col

ColinEssex said:

One question perhaps one of you gun carrying killers can answer.

Why didn't the gunman (or any others) use a silencer? Or is that only used in films and doesn't exist in real life.

Col

Click to expand...

The term "silencer" really only applies to the 22 rim fire with sub sonic ammo. Also to centre fires with very small powder capacity and where the ammunition is loaded so that the muzzle velocity is below the speed of sound.

So when above the speed of sound you have the very loud rack of the bullet.

On higher power/higher velocity they are called suppressors. They reduce the muzzle blast, especially the intensity of it are used to help hearing protection and usually in hunting conditions.

Although with a very small higher power cartridge (that is, not a rim fire) like the 5.56/223 Remington, the one for the M16 and AR15, given the noise of the concert/crowd and distance from the shooter then with a suppressor the crowd would not hear much from the gun. However, they would hear the bullets "cracking" all round them. Police however, on arrival would be very quickly aware or the general direction of the shooting and would hear the gun because they would be aware a suppressor was being used.

With movies and also the media, about 99.9% of what you see about guns is bullshit and often at the highest level.

For the shooter, they would have been inconvenient and I think they are difficult to buy in America as they are in Australia. However, they are commonly used in lots of European countries.

ColinEssex said:

I suppose as you are American, one has to expect subtlety and good manners are somewhat alien to you.

Col

Click to expand...

And I suppose as you are a total child, the pulling of your chain seems a breach of manners yet the pulling of others seems acceptable.

...and the horse you rode in on.

Colin, regarding your question on silencers:

First thought: ISIS is now claiming he was one of theirs. If that is true, then his goal was terror and why would he want a silencer? He wouldn't, I think. Instead, he would want to make a terribly loud noise to increase the terror factor.

Second thought: Silencers and suppressors cause a minor reduction in the speed of the bullets. Since he was shooting at long range, he might have been concerned about aiming issues due to reduced muzzle velocity. Also, since he had so many rifles, he would have needed a lot of silencers to go with them. I suspect he was faced with a case of "all or nothing at all" due to legal issues in one person buying multiple silencers, and chose the "nothing" side of the question.

Until the FBI resolves the issue of whether he had truly become a radicalized Islamic extremist, and until they come up with a motive (if not terror), then we might have to wait in order to speculate on why he made the choices he made.

On a different note, belated happy birthday.

The_Doc_Man said:

Second thought: Silencers and suppressors cause a minor reduction in the speed of the bullets

Click to expand...

Not so. In fact just the opposite, the same as muzzle brakes. However, you won't pick it up on a chronograph for a few shots as velocity difference is less than the shot to shot variation.

In some cases velocity is reduced, a lot and because reduced loads are used. In some cases (most) this is so muzzle velocity is less than speed of sound. In other cases the load is reduced because the suppressor is small and just won't handle the gas/pressure from a full load.

As to accuracy and the shooter, with the range (which was short, 400 yards maximum) and the nature of the guns being fired it would not matter if the velocity of each shot was +- 300 f/s, even more.