Las Vegas Mandalay Bay Mass Shooting

[HuMz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think about it, if someone is repeatedly shown to be a shitty driver, you don't hope they'll magically become a better one - They clearly have a problem with driving responsibly. So take away their fucking car so they can't drive anymore until they figure their shit out.

I'm not ignoring anything. Fucking look at Australia.

How is this analogy applicable? You point to the fact that we punish drivers who have been repeatedly shown to be a bad driver, by taking away their cars. However, Americans do punish and restrict gun rights of those who have been proven to be irresponsible. So this analogy doesn't appear to be applicable. Rather, I think if we are to take your point on gun control, and apply it to your driver example, it would be similar to - we should ought to punish and restrict all drivers, because a select few drivers have shown to be irresponsible.

Also, I think you are ignoring the 2nd ammendment, because your statements haven't addressed what to do with it. What should I see in Australia? I certainty don't see that they had a fundamental right to not have their firearms taken away like the US has.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Normally I don't read jrs posts as he never has anything of substantive value to add to the conversation, but needless to say, your own post is tragically lacking in remotely any critical thought to the subject besides knee jerk leftist response.

So yea, guess we're at a bit of a crossroads, myself presenting a valid stance on the subject, you mistaking the words you type on your keyboard as "intellect".

Edit-
Pretty bad when I agree with 538, which is most certainly a left biased entity.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/leah...d-me-otherwise

Sorry jrs I just couldn't leave it.

Hitemp it's clear you aren't even reading my posts and haven't worked your way through the logic of the argument.

At the end of the day the left thinks the only answer is extreme gun control. The right thinks the only answer is addressing mental health. Both are stupid answers to the problem (at least by themselves).

The left needs to accept research that shows in most cases strict gun control doesn't solve it. The right has to understand first that mental health is a far throw from a concrete science and that screening alone on mental health or improving mental health care that many can't even access anyways doesn't prevent this either

[Seth1968]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The left needs to accept research that shows in most cases strict gun control doesn't solve it. The right has to understand first that mental health is a far throw from a concrete science and that screening alone on mental health or improving mental health care that many can't even access anyways doesn't prevent this either

Perhaps a common trait among these shooters is a burning desire to be famous at any cost.

[Gman.45]

12 of the rifles found in the 32 floor room had bump fire stocks on them. So, the weapons were all likely legal semi autos, just equipped with the bump stocks to make them fire similarly to full auto. No illegal weapons in other words it looks like now.

While ideas of "the USA should do something, look at Australia etc" all sound good, it's not so easy as that. For one, Australia has no constitutional laws specific to firearms rights similar to what the USA has. The only type of law that even MAY, (and it is MAY, it's unlikely any laws passed would have much of a positive effect on firearms violence or the potential for acts like these) have an effect would have to involved the outright banning of certain types of rifles and handguns, such as anything high capacity capable as well as semi auto. The roadblocks to doing this are insurmountable IMO - for one, the cost, even IF they could get a ban through, how would a broke ass nation like America pay the billions upon billions in compensation for the seized property. Refusing to pay compensation would result in even MORE non compliance, which would be the larger problem to begin with.

There is no "gun law" solution to this problem, short of a complete ban on weapons and door to door confiscation, which would result in at best massive civil disobedience and even more violence, and at worst the flying apart of the American states.

Also, everyone pointing to Australia and Canada - I've said this many times, some dumbass could easily replicate what just happened in Vegas here in Canada, with our existing "strict" laws, any moron can convert 5 round magazines to 30 in the blink of an eye.

I understand how frustrating it is for people unfamiliar with firearms laws both in the USA and here, as well as those unfamiliar with US constitutional laws and protections, to understand how it isn't as simple as just "pass a law banning this or that". Even IF it was possible, doing so would create for more problems, AND violence, than they would solve. With 300 million + firearms in the USA, with their laws and also more importantly their culture, doing anything about it or expecting new laws to change things, is fantasy at best.

Someone brought up Switzerland. The Swiss have millions of full auto PE90 (the famous Swiss Arms rifles here in Canada) variants issued to their people. Crimes with them or any other firearms are quite rare. Same as Canada, 15 million, likely more, firearms, yet out of the 800 deaths by firearms yearly on average for the last 15 years, 700 are on average accidents or suicides. So, what's the difference with America then, with its decimal point higher rate of violence with firearms? If it's not the rate of ownership or numbers of firearms compared to Switzerland/Canada/wherever, then IMO it has to be within the culture and people. Changing people and cultures - heh, good luck passing laws to do that. Good. Luck.

The left needs to accept research that shows in most cases strict gun control doesn't solve it. The right has to understand first that mental health is a far throw from a concrete science and that screening alone on mental health or improving mental health care that many can't even access anyways doesn't prevent this either

I can agree with that I think - but where does that leave us then? Gun control has been proven not to work, or at least in the case of America won't work. Trying to "crystal ball" a person's future behavior based on wishy washy DSM5 diagnosis from the pseudo-medical field of "psychology", is a ridiculous method to try and prevent future violence. So, what's the solution then? Are you saying what I'm thinking, that there generally isn't one?

[Rocket1k78]

The feds managed to talk the gf to fly back to vegas from the Philippines today and now theyre questioning her. There was supposedly a wire transfer to her for 100k from him recently

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The feds managed to talk the gf to fly back to vegas from the Philippines today and now theyre questioning her. There was supposedly a wire transfer to her for 100k from him recently

He was also a millionaire, so 100k wired to his wife visiting family while on vacation was probably nothing out of the ordinary.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

12 of the rifles found in the 32 floor room had bump fire stocks on them. So, the weapons were all likely legal semi autos, just equipped with the bump stocks to make them fire similarly to full auto. No illegal weapons in other words it looks like now.

While ideas of "the USA should do something, look at Australia etc" all sound good, it's not so easy as that. For one, Australia has no constitutional laws specific to firearms rights similar to what the USA has. The only type of law that even MAY, (and it is MAY, it's unlikely any laws passed would have much of a positive effect on firearms violence or the potential for acts like these) have an effect would have to involved the outright banning of certain types of rifles and handguns, such as anything high capacity capable as well as semi auto. The roadblocks to doing this are insurmountable IMO - for one, the cost, even IF they could get a ban through, how would a broke ass nation like America pay the billions upon billions in compensation for the seized property. Refusing to pay compensation would result in even MORE non compliance, which would be the larger problem to begin with.

There is no "gun law" solution to this problem, short of a complete ban on weapons and door to door confiscation, which would result in at best massive civil disobedience and even more violence, and at worst the flying apart of the American states.

Also, everyone pointing to Australia and Canada - I've said this many times, some dumbass could easily replicate what just happened in Vegas here in Canada, with our existing "strict" laws, any moron can convert 5 round magazines to 30 in the blink of an eye.

I understand how frustrating it is for people unfamiliar with firearms laws both in the USA and here, as well as those unfamiliar with US constitutional laws and protections, to understand how it isn't as simple as just "pass a law banning this or that". Even IF it was possible, doing so would create for more problems, AND violence, than they would solve. With 300 million + firearms in the USA, with their laws and also more importantly their culture, doing anything about it or expecting new laws to change things, is fantasy at best.

Someone brought up Switzerland. The Swiss have millions of full auto PE90 (the famous Swiss Arms rifles here in Canada) variants issued to their people. Crimes with them or any other firearms are quite rare. Same as Canada, 15 million, likely more, firearms, yet out of the 800 deaths by firearms yearly on average for the last 15 years, 700 are on average accidents or suicides. So, what's the difference with America then, with its decimal point higher rate of violence with firearms? If it's not the rate of ownership or numbers of firearms compared to Switzerland/Canada/wherever, then IMO it has to be within the culture and people. Changing people and cultures - heh, good luck passing laws to do that. Good. Luck.



I can agree with that I think - but where does that leave us then? Gun control has been proven not to work, or at least in the case of America won't work. Trying to "crystal ball" a person's future behavior based on wishy washy DSM5 diagnosis from the pseudo-medical field of "psychology", is a ridiculous method to try and prevent future violence. So, what's the solution then? Are you saying what I'm thinking, that there generally isn't one?

Yea I don't have the solution. I'm too ignorant of both the gun restriction and psychological sides. However I know enough to know that one or the other isn't going to work and focusing on going one way or the other is doing everyone a huge disservice.

I honestly hate when the 2nd amendment is brought up in the debate. It's such a horribly moronic crutch to use in the debate. The second ammendment does nothing to address the underlying issues.

I will say this though (as some people have talked about how "inefficient" this mass murder was). For one person with no formal training to speak of to kill 58 people and injure another 530 in just 11 minutes is completely fucked in my opinion. When the second ammendment was written, you couldn't do that in an entire day with the guns they had so it is absolutely idiotic to think the second ammendment has any intelligent role in finding the solution it was not written with the understanding of what a dangerous tool the gun would become

Edit: sorry I know you didn't bring up the 2nd ammendment, wasn't directed at you. Was just listening to some bozo talking about protecting the 2nd amendment.

[Gman.45]

I honestly hate when the 2nd amendment is brought up in the debate. It's such a horribly moronic crutch to use in the debate. The second ammendment does nothing to address the underlying issues.

I will say this though (as some people have talked about how "inefficient" this mass murder was so guns have zero blame). For one person with no formal training to speak of to kill 58 people and injure another 530 in just 11 minutes is completely fucked in my opinion. When the second ammendment was written, you couldn't do that in an entire day with the guns they had so it is absolutely idiotic to think the second ammendment has any intteligent role in finding the solution.

I respect what you're saying, particularly the manner you're saying it, below is my opinion re: the second:

2A has to be brought up, as it's the legal barrier to ANY change to the laws in the USA (I'm not saying I'm for change, I'm just stating the obvious). Specifically, the way the 2nd is written, it protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms, both as "people" and as an organized "militia".

Also, you're incorrect about the "times" and the founding fathers intentions when they first wrote gun rights into the constitution. Muskets and flintlock pistols never did cause the majority of casualties in the revolutionary war, nor was it them specifically they wrote the second amendment FOR. Even in England at the time, it was just considered "normal" for those in their colonies to carry arms such as rifles and pistols. It wasn't even a discussed issue, it was just regular life, everyone had a flintlock rifle and/or pistol, and carrying them in plain sight was common throughout the entire British Empire/colonies, particularly in America where they were a tool for hunting/eating, as well as defense against the common native indian attacks. 2A was about ARMS for a well regulated militia AND the people. This means artillery. Artillery/cannon killed 10x the soldiers/troops/people in the Rev war than small arms did, perhaps even 100 times. Even today, artillery accounts for 2/3 or more of casualties in modern warfare still.

So, in 1790 era terms, the rights for joe blow to keep and bear powder, shot, and artillery was as much if not more what they wrote the 2A for as opposed to small arms. Saying that "they couldn't do back then what they can today" due to the 2A laws/rights itself, is completely wrong. Back then had someone "snapped", they had rights and access to weaponry (artillery) that using cannister rounds was just as lethal as a modern rifle today in terms of firing into a crowd. 1 horse, 1 wagon, one wheeled artillery piece would all 1790 nutcase Joe would have needed to blast an assembled crowd, in terms of a comparison to modern day firepower/capability. I guess the bottom line of what I"m saying here is that the "founding fathers" wrote the 2nd amendment to ensure that American civilians had the capability to have access and the rights to keep and bear equal firepower and technology as the British - and their own American, standing armies. What I mean before about what you're saying, is that I think what you mean is that this right and purpose may not be compatible with life and culture in modern day America. I'm not saying that's my opinion, I'm just assuming/guessing that this is what you're getting at essentially.

Again, this shooter/incident caused 10x more wounds than lethal hits, due to both his choice of caliber, and method he chose. He could have just as easily chosen a different method and caliber - a 308/30 06/7mm/whatever common >30 caliber hunting rifle with a decent optic, and every, single, shot could have been right through a person's dome at that range. 15 minutes of shooting is what he did, even an untrained rifleman can get off 10 well aimed shots per minute, which would have been easily, easily 150 lethal shots in the same time. Fewer wounded, but FAR more dead. I've seen the effects of both 556 and 762 NATO and xSoviet 30 cal/x54 caliber rounds first hand, and the 308/etc caliber rounds are far, far more lethal in terms of their terminal ballistic effects on target.

So, banning "this and that" type, will NOT stop future attacks of this nature and magnitude, even the lowest common denominator in terms of "lethality of action" firearms, ie bolt action rifles, can have a terrible effect. British/Canadian troops in WW1 and WW2 using the Lee Enfield SMLE 303 rifle, with a 10 round magazine, had army wide competitons called "the mad minute". A good rifleman could fire 30 rounds in 1 minute using that bolt action rifle - it was specifically designed to be FAST - and get accurate lethal hits at 300 meters, the same range the shooter in Vegas was from the crowd almost exactly. The best could do 40+ rounds per minute in "the mad minute". That's with a $100 dollar surplus rifle and the stock iron sights.

A Mad Minute event was held in Soknedal, Norway, on 30 May 2015 featuring some of the best stang shooters in the country.[3] The competition was called the "Mad Minute Challenge"[1], and was shot at a round 400 mm (that's 15 inches, a human chest/torso sized target) diameter target at 200 meters (2 mils/ 6.9 moa), making the target smaller than original. The winner, Thomas Høgåsseter, scored 36 hits. The average score, of 11 shooters, was 29.

[ZenOps]

Ballistic lead in a modern war scenario is probably akin to spearchucking. Kim Jong has nukes now, and 16 - year old robots can fly infrared camera drones and get you from 100 miles away while you sleep in pitch black. There is a very limited scenario where ballistic lead would be useful in a modern war scenario, arguably the visual sunlight "gun" had its time from the end of the 15th century up until about 1970.

Humans are without doubt, the weakest part of any military.

What you really want, is a RPG with anti-tank rounds and mini-stinger missles. http://www.businessinsider.com/north...-egypt-2017-10 30,000 RPGs cost about $23 million when priced in the USA, but *significantly* less when purchased in bulk from North Korea. You could arm 10,000 troops with RPGs for arguably $5 million.

Ballistic lead only has some limited use if you use a sniper rifle, otherwise you might as well go for the RPG for anything that requires human line of sight and go for splash and structural damage (real war scenario) The USA obsession with ballistic lead, may be its ultimate downfall, what worked in the past - may not always work in the future. What took this shooter an hour to do, could probably be done with three anti-infantry shots from an RPG. The reason that some militaries give their infantries AR-15 is to limit the amount of damage (and mistakes) they can inflict.

One can look at the Vietnam war as a failure of ballistic lead. The USA brought a ridiculous amount of lead to start, but only switched over to napalm as they started losing that war.

PS: I wonder what Binkov would think of a California vs Texas scenario.

[Supa Dexta]

This is a pretty shoddy hoax, according to this quote from the NYpost

'By the time the 64-year-old retired accountant’s rampage ended Sunday night, the floor of Room 32-135 at the Mandalay Bay hotel was littered with spent high-caliber shell casings — including at least one shell from the revolver that he used to blow his brains out.'

Who set that scene up. ha

[max_boost]

Because managing a country of 30mill is the same as 300mill?

[Gman.45]

Who set that scene up. ha

Heh. Just a reporter who didn't specify that the shell was still in the cylinder in the revolver - if it WAS on the floor, then ya, we'd have a problem here. I realize this is obvious to you, but not everyone understands how these things function.

A security guard did ID him, he took a 556 in the leg for his trouble to, as he actually had the balls to confront him so they are reporting at least. Perhaps the kinder gentler Vegas will now reconsider disarming all their security, when I was there in the early 2000s every single security officer had a sidearm, many had rifles. Now, nothing. That guard could have zipped this idiot in the back and ended things far sooner. Instead he had to stand there with his dick in his hands instead, and take rounds for his trouble. Fuck that.

[Xtrema]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/busine...-vegas-strong/

Just saw this ad pitched at me by youtube.

And this:
http://mmajunkie.com/2017/10/ufc-veg...ng-out-quickly

I missed this whole thread except the early days. I don't think US governments will do anything different given who is in power and most of them are in pocket of NRA. There will be no gun control.

Would love to read up on how this is actually accomplished with a place on earth with the most cameras. As Vegas holds quite a bit of world wide conventions, wonder if those business will go else where now.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think US governments will do anything different given who is in power and most of them are in pocket of NRA. There will be no gun control.

Jim Jefferies put it nicely... "If nothing was done after a school full of kids was shot up, nothing will ever be done."

[Feruk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

2A has to be brought up, as it's the legal barrier to ANY change to the laws in the USA (I'm not saying I'm for change, I'm just stating the obvious). Specifically, the way the 2nd is written, it protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms, both as "people" and as an organized "militia".

Last I checked, a private citizen can't buy a stinger missile in the USA. So while the idea of taking guns away from people is a non-starter due to the 2A, the type of weapons they are allowed to carry is just dependent on political will.