Las Vegas Shooting

[TheFeniX]

As for issues with gun crazy in the U.S.: don't discount Hollywood's obsession with telling us how terrible guns are, then showing us how badass you look when blowing doooods away with them. Desert Eagle .50cal sales went wild after The Matrix came out even though it is hands down one of the SHITTIEST guns to shoot.

This is not limited to guns. Look at all the fucking morons buying OWLS (like, "hoot hoot" owls) after Harry Potter hit theatres. Then dumping said owls when they realized "not great house-pets for your dumbass kid." TMNT had kids buying (and dumping) box turtles. People are just goddamn moronic when it comes to pop-culture shit.

And "miltary hardware" has always been popular. Look at the 1911. It's just, we didn't have lightweight polymers and plastics for shit like the Thompson civilian knock-offs. Those wouldn't come till later. Red-dots sights, lasers sights (ugh), and other tacticool stuff was hideously expensive. I can now get a knock-off, but quality Japanese red-dot model for $60 when my first sight was an EoTech that ran me $400 because it was about the only model worth a shit (still great sights).

AR-15 and their derivatives have been available forever. But it wasn't until the mid-90s the Colt patent ran out and anyone could start stamping them, and the price bottomed out. And considering the design philosophy and what came out of the military surplus, it's not a big leap to wonder why it's such a popular platform. It's the Honda Civic of rifles, but something like the Ruger Mini-14 (available since, what, the 70s?) is effectively the same gun except available in "liberal safe" wood-stock version.

The thing is, cats die. Guns don't. If your grandma had two cats, and your other grandma had two cats, and your childless uncle had three cats and got a fourth two years before he died of a heart attack, that probably won't ever translate into you owning eight cats, at least not for the rest of your life.

No one going to take a jab at women for owning 11 million pairs of shoes? I mean, I also keep/kept a lot of my physical copies of video games over the years. God forbid I don't drop them on the used market for pennies.

I have considered tossing some of my arsenal onto guntrader or whatever, but I don't want to deal with that. And trying to trade-in guns to a retail chain FFL is a bust. Gander offered me $200 for my .45 CX4 (less than 6 months old and less than 200 rounds through it) when I wanted to swap it for the 9mm version. Instead, I sold it to my dad for $200 and bought the 9mm version. So... if and when my dad passes, I'm going to have two CX4s.

It's called "a fucking hobby." I've spent stupid money on it over the years, but my brother could dump what I spent on guns in 5 years into ONE car and I still have all my guns and every single hot-rod he built was either wrecked, stolen, or rusted to shit in his driveway. The dangers of firearms aside, there aren't many hobbies where you can USE what you buy and have it retain a significant portion of it's value and/or actually increase in value over time. I've got models and toys worth money. Just taking them out of the box eviscerates their value. Same with Magic cards and other "usable" collectables.

[biostem]

Frankly, I'm surprised that devices which can "simulate" automatic fire, like bump stocks, were legal in the first place. I'm more impressed with the engineering behind them than any actual usefulness they may have...

[Elheru Aran]

Frankly, I'm surprised that devices which can "simulate" automatic fire, like bump stocks, were legal in the first place. I'm more impressed with the engineering behind them than any actual usefulness they may have...

The distinction is mostly that they are external devices attached to the weapon, rather than an integral part of its action. It's hard to prohibit such devices due to the immense variety available. We are likely to see them try though...

[biostem]

Frankly, I'm surprised that devices which can "simulate" automatic fire, like bump stocks, were legal in the first place. I'm more impressed with the engineering behind them than any actual usefulness they may have...

The distinction is mostly that they are external devices attached to the weapon, rather than an integral part of its action. It's hard to prohibit such devices due to the immense variety available. We are likely to see them try though...

Oh no doubt. I don't know how you'd even phrase such a law, without being overly vague. It's sort of like the ban on pistol grips or bayonet mounts, in some states - which literally don't affect the actual firing mechanism of the firearm or are purely aesthetic.

[Highlord Laan]

Frankly, I'm surprised that devices which can "simulate" automatic fire, like bump stocks, were legal in the first place. I'm more impressed with the engineering behind them than any actual usefulness they may have...

The distinction is mostly that they are external devices attached to the weapon, rather than an integral part of its action. It's hard to prohibit such devices due to the immense variety available. We are likely to see them try though...

Oh no doubt. I don't know how you'd even phrase such a law, without being overly vague. It's sort of like the ban on pistol grips or bayonet mounts, in some states - which literally don't affect the actual firing mechanism of the firearm or are purely aesthetic.

It's almost funny because most rifles that can actually use a bump stock, don't need a bump stock to simulate automatic fire via really fast trigger pulls. Take any Evil Black milspec 30 rounds a second ghost gun murder machine with it's demonic whispers, assault magazine, and black shoulder thing that goes up. Hold it normally in your hands at waist height. Loop the thump of the hand holding the evil milispec murder assault pistol grip and hook it through a belt loop at your side while keeping your finger on the trigger. Then pull forward slowly with the hand on the evil black milspec assault ghost gun barrel cover until you feel the trigger catch, the pull just barely past that until the demonic murder machine fires. Keep pulling slightly forward and the recoil will keep the evil death machine firing.

Violla! You can now use a standard AR-15 as an "automatic weapon." Only you can't aim and all you're doing is using an amusing method to waste a full magazine. A bump stock is slightly better in that regard, but not by a whole lot. Turns out it's hard to control burst fire for more than a few seconds and you just end up throwing lead everywhere downrange. I never liked the things because I thought they were stupid waste of money. Banning them is just a feel good measure to make people who have no earthly clue as to what they're talking about think they're actually doing something, because it's stupidly easy to make a bump stock from scratch using a 3D printer and some springs. Won't be as good as one made by an actual firearms company, but if someone it's using a bump stock at all they already don't give a damn about accuracy.

And finally, I am happy to report that I am one of the over 85 million gun owners that didn't hurt anyone today. Or the day before. Or the day before that, or any day at all in the past. Don't know what tomorrow will bring though, because apparently all my guns are whispering dark and evil things in my subconscious to make me go out and kill people. Guess it's a good thing I keep them in a secured locker, otherwise they might just go out and do it themselves.

[LadyTevar]

Frankly, I'm surprised that devices which can "simulate" automatic fire, like bump stocks, were legal in the first place. I'm more impressed with the engineering behind them than any actual usefulness they may have...

The distinction is mostly that they are external devices attached to the weapon, rather than an integral part of its action. It's hard to prohibit such devices due to the immense variety available. We are likely to see them try though...

SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE TEN FOR THAT INFO.

Tl:DR The NRA are voluntarily asking for a ban on bump-stocks.

[Raw Shark]

That said. You don't need a M-16 to hunt. You don't need bump fire or the ability to carry a rifle into Starbucks to collect a deer. The squirrels stealing your corn aren't going to care that you've got 40 guns in the safe. Basically what I'm saying here, I suppose, is that I don't find 'but hunting!' to be a realistic argument AGAINST gun control. Against *excessive* gun control of the 'taking all your weapons' kind of gun control, sure. Against the 'do you really need a small arsenal of black-ops-wannabe-guns, mate?' kind of gun control, no.

No disagreement. My first rifle is a .22 LR, and she is to squirrels what the grim reaper is to men. I named her Charlene. Bonus points for getting the reference.

[Highlord Laan]

That said. You don't need a M-16 to hunt. You don't need bump fire or the ability to carry a rifle into Starbucks to collect a deer. The squirrels stealing your corn aren't going to care that you've got 40 guns in the safe. Basically what I'm saying here, I suppose, is that I don't find 'but hunting!' to be a realistic argument AGAINST gun control. Against *excessive* gun control of the 'taking all your weapons' kind of gun control, sure. Against the 'do you really need a small arsenal of black-ops-wannabe-guns, mate?' kind of gun control, no.

Guess it's a good thing civilians can't get an M-16 then.

A friend of mine uses her AR-15 pretty often while out on her ranch. It's a bit big for the gophers and such whose holes pose a danger to her cattle and horses, and therefore her livelihood, but it's perfect for taking out coyotes and such, or drug runners that have cut across her land before. She's been confronted by them twice, once they actually exchanged fire. Luckily she wasn't hit. Why does she use an AR? For the same reasons the military prefers that style of weapon. It's light, accurate, reliable, hits hard enough, has a very good engagement range and the ammo is plentiful.

The AR-15 is nothing but a .223 rifle that's had some Evil Black plastic furniture put on it. If you're going to ban it, than you'd better be ready to attempt to ban every other lightweight, accurate, semi-auto (OH NO! I SAID THE EVIL "A" WORD!) rifle on the market. Good luck with that.

[Zixinus]

Violla! You can now use a standard AR-15 as an "automatic weapon." Only you can't aim and all you're doing is using an amusing method to waste a full magazine.

The problem is that there is readily-made mod that allows not only to waste bullets, but somewhat actually aim them in a controlled fashion. You can't regulate a trick of playing a figure guard. You can regulate readily-available products.

If you can make yourself one with a 3D printer and some springs, that's another matter. You are now illegally modifying your weapon and manufacturing new parts. That takes more per-mediation, more skill and effort. If someone has the tools and skills, they can make an entire submachinegun or more. You can 3D print most of a gun too, people are already working on that to some success. If someone has the right skill and resources, they can make a firearm. But the amount of people capable of that are limited, which cuts down the amount of crazies which is a worthwhile benefit. Not to mention that self-made guns are likely to be far less capable and more prone to failure than brought ones.

The issue is to prevent mass shooters on this side of the issue. To talk what is a civilian gun and what isn't, what is an action that only a crazy mass-shooter would do and what isn't. Is this the best approach to the problem? I don't think so, but I am convinced that availability is part of the problem because firearms are meant to be force-multipliers. Without the availability of those force-multipliers, the amount of people dead would be drastically less.

Should the phenomenon be better understood and maybe prevented on as many other sides? I think so. I am always a little depressed how every time this comes up, nobody talks about this from any other aspect than the guns. Nobody talks about mental issues and creating mental safety nets or programs to catch crazy people and re-socialize them. Or at least spot them before they manage they do the mass-shooting (or mass bombing or whatever other big display of violence). On both sides of the issue everyone just shrugs their shoulder and just goes "this happens". How could that be done? If I knew that, I would be already doing it and screaming at people to do it.

But the fact of the matter is, that civilians do not need a weapon above a certain rate of fire. This has been already decided into law. That something so off-the-shelf gone trough the ATF's filters and decided to let it be legal because it did not technically make a semi-auto weapon into a proper machine gun is rather feeble. I think some sort of standard for determining effective rate of fire based upon which you can regulate firearms is perhaps a worthwhile discussion.

[Highlord Laan]

Given that the filth that perpetrated the massacre in Las Vegas was already off his rocker and decided to kill a bunch of people, do you seriously think that having an extra step in front of getting a bump stock would have actually stopped him? He was already an obscenely wealthy motherfucker that could get every permit in the land completely above board, he was obviously willing to break the law, and he killed almost sixty people despite apparently being the proper american white guy.

I'm rolling my eyes at the sudden craze in regulating more Evil Black (or Evil OD Green) things because of how absolutely stupid and useless it is. My brother has a bump stock on his other AR for the sole reason that it's absurdly fun to shoot. Now according to the people screaming about the evils of guns (again) he's at risk of killing a bunch of people because reasons. The grabbers agenda in this is so transparent that people actually falling for it are downright insulting. You can get the same effect as a bump stock with some household items and a hand crank. "Oh!" people will say "but that illegal!"

Well so fucking what? if I was out to kill a bunch of people do you think I'd give a single shit about violating the law?

Ergo, since "illegally modifying" any semi-auto (OH NO!) weapon is so dammed easy, what do you think the next step will be no that the shits have their foot in the door?

As an aside, yet another day in america has passed where 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone. Must be a fluke.

[ray245]

Given that the filth that perpetrated the massacre in Las Vegas was already off his rocker and decided to kill a bunch of people, do you seriously think that having an extra step in front of getting a bump stock would have actually stopped him? He was already an obscenely wealthy motherfucker that could get every permit in the land completely above board, he was obviously willing to break the law, and he killed almost sixty people despite apparently being the proper american white guy.

I'm rolling my eyes at the sudden craze in regulating more Evil Black (or Evil OD Green) things because of how absolutely stupid and useless it is. My brother has a bump stock on his other AR for the sole reason that it's absurdly fun to shoot. Now according to the people screaming about the evils of guns (again) he's at risk of killing a bunch of people because reasons. The grabbers agenda in this is so transparent that people actually falling for it are downright insulting. You can get the same effect as a bump stock with some household items and a hand crank. "Oh!" people will say "but that illegal!"

Well so fucking what? if I was out to kill a bunch of people do you think I'd give a single shit about violating the law?

Ergo, since "illegally modifying" any semi-auto (OH NO!) weapon is so dammed easy, what do you think the next step will be no that the shits have their foot in the door?

As an aside, yet another day in america has passed where 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone. Must be a fluke.

Because the main issue people are talking about is not necessarily stopping gun deaths, but specifically dealing with mass shootings. A knife attack? The recent event in France showed that while people can be killed, they can be easier to stop.

Massed shooting? Far harder to stop. It's not merely about deterrence. It's about making any crazed lunatic having to jump through more difficult hurdles, potentially flagging the person out before such a thing happen.

[TheFeniX]

Because the main issue people are talking about is not necessarily stopping gun deaths, but specifically dealing with mass shootings. A knife attack? The recent event in France showed that while people can be killed, they can be easier to stop.

Unlike another attack in France that killed 86 and injured more than 450. They just rented a truck, did the recon, and picked the right time for maximum damage.

Massed shooting? Far harder to stop. It's not merely about deterrence. It's about making any crazed lunatic having to jump through more difficult hurdles, potentially flagging the person out before such a thing happen.

The problem is, they just change their tactics. If Bump Stocks become something police watch out for, they just aren't going to purchase them. If tracking multiple purchases of firearms earns you a visit from the police for explanation (something I'm not opposed to), then they have multiple options to evade such a system.

Fact is, considering the devices used, it would not have been an appreciable reduction in fire rate without a bump stock. It's not even that hard to maintain a semblance of accuracy (even though shooting into the crowd was the whole point, accuracy was lowest on his list) while rapid firing. I do it all the time. When I used to shoot trap, people would routinely comment I could shoot my Mossberg pump faster than they could get off rounds with their automatics. NOTE: An "Automatic Shotgun" does not mean "full-auto." It means the action automatically cycles a new round into the chamber upon firing the previous one.

That's besides the point though: playing "catch-up" with terrorists is just not a winning way to go about fighting them. This same type of mentality pervaded the TSA after 9/11. Then another whack-job tries something different and they take precautions against THAT. This killer doesn't fit a lot of molds either way from what I've read. He's a total anomaly. I don't think there's a lot of ways to stop someone like him with laws. This would be much more on the investigation side of things. Such as tracking odd movements of citizens or (as said earlier) tracking multiple firearms purchases.

But saying "ban the thing that was used in this one specific instance" doesn't seem like a win. This just makes it so you don't even have the option to track purchases with the help of sellers since they'll now be homemade in response, if used at all. I don't know how many would be onboard, but FFLs might be persuaded (or forced) to give data such as "who purchases what," which would be a backdoor registry, but there's so much tracking built into the modern day anyways.

I don't have the answer. However I will say I agree with Highlord Laan's sentiment. Banning bump stocks is a gimme from the NRA. As George Carlin would say, "the illusion of security."

[Terralthra]

As an aside, yet another day in america has passed where 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone. Must be a fluke.

I think you meant to say, yet another day in America has passed where 85 million gun owners killed 6 people. Yesterday was over 20. Just because they're not media-attention garnering mass shootings doesn't mean there aren't people dead from gun violence every day.

[Highlord Laan]

As an aside, yet another day in america has passed where 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone. Must be a fluke.

I think you meant to say, yet another day in America has passed where 85 million gun owners killed 6 people. Yesterday was over 20. Just because they're not media-attention garnering mass shootings doesn't mean there aren't people dead from gun violence every day.

There's also people dead from bare-fist violence, handy brick violence, baseball bat violence, edged piece of metal violence, deliberate motorvehicle violence, stangled-with-a-rope violence, pushed off a ledge violence, and quite a few others if I felt like laying it on any thicker.
Would you be calling for the outlawing of all forms of martial arts after a person is beat to death? Boxing? All of those exist for the sole purpose of maiming and killing people, to check the argument I know you'll pull about the purpose of firearms. How about putting age restrictions on knives and other edged weapons after totaling up all the deaths to knives, swords and axes? Will you be championing an attempt to repeal gravity and inertia next? Because Sir Issac Newton was apparently a murderous son of a bitch throughout history. Will you write your representatives saying that no structure taller than a single floor should be allowed to prevent falling/pushing deaths? Better ban tourists doing things like rock climbing and hiking on mountain trails too, just to be sure.

Tell me something, at what point does whichever tool was used to kill someone become less important than someone being killed to you? Because dead is dead, guns just happen to be the favorite scapegoat of people tunneling visioned on their pet cause. If america has a problem, it's a violence problem, and that won't be solved by going after the implements, since we were killing each other on a pretty impressive scale with just spears and bows. And rocks and sticks before that. But actually going after cause of the problem is too hard for people like you isn't it? Far neater, and it certainly looks better on the news, to be pushing for some magical silver bullet to solve one of the oldest problems plaguing humanity, right?

Hm, we could pour resources into rebuilding our justice system into something worthy of the name, emplace an economic system that isn't dog-eat-dog, employ a high nationwide standard for mental health and actually start trying to cure social ills that drive people to enraged desperation, but nah. Too hard. Much easier to demonize guns and say they're the problem.

Oh, and nice attempt at collective guilt, by the way. Actually, no, it was pretty fucking pathetic, but I expect nothing more from you. Try again, I could use a laugh.

[ray245]

Unlike another attack in France that killed 86 and injured more than 450. They just rented a truck, did the recon, and picked the right time for maximum damage.

Yes, that happens as well. But it's far easier to implement measures against such attacks, by putting up proper barricades and minimise the damage. At least one of the attacks in Barcelona was halted by the barricades.

The problem is, they just change their tactics. If Bump Stocks become something police watch out for, they just aren't going to purchase them. If tracking multiple purchases of firearms earns you a visit from the police for explanation (something I'm not opposed to), then they have multiple options to evade such a system.

Fact is, considering the devices used, it would not have been an appreciable reduction in fire rate without a bump stock. It's not even that hard to maintain a semblance of accuracy (even though shooting into the crowd was the whole point, accuracy was lowest on his list) while rapid firing. I do it all the time. When I used to shoot trap, people would routinely comment I could shoot my Mossberg pump faster than they could get off rounds with their automatics. NOTE: An "Automatic Shotgun" does not mean "full-auto." It means the action automatically cycles a new round into the chamber upon firing the previous one.

That's besides the point though: playing "catch-up" with terrorists is just not a winning way to go about fighting them. This same type of mentality pervaded the TSA after 9/11. Then another whack-job tries something different and they take precautions against THAT. This killer doesn't fit a lot of molds either way from what I've read. He's a total anomaly. I don't think there's a lot of ways to stop someone like him with laws. This would be much more on the investigation side of things. Such as tracking odd movements of citizens or (as said earlier) tracking multiple firearms purchases.

But saying "ban the thing that was used in this one specific instance" doesn't seem like a win. This just makes it so you don't even have the option to track purchases with the help of sellers since they'll now be homemade in response, if used at all. I don't know how many would be onboard, but FFLs might be persuaded (or forced) to give data such as "who purchases what," which would be a backdoor registry, but there's so much tracking built into the modern day anyways.

I don't have the answer. However I will say I agree with Highlord Laan's sentiment. Banning bump stocks is a gimme from the NRA. As George Carlin would say, "the illusion of security."

Forcing them to change tactics is a good measure. The more difficult things become for those people, the higher the chance of them being found out. It becomes easier to track them and let them make mistakes.

This guy spent a considerable amount of time planning this attack. You don't want him to have an easier time doing such things.

[Terralthra]

As an aside, yet another day in america has passed where 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone. Must be a fluke.

I think you meant to say, yet another day in America has passed where 85 million gun owners killed 6 people. Yesterday was over 20. Just because they're not media-attention garnering mass shootings doesn't mean there aren't people dead from gun violence every day.

There's also people dead from bare-fist violence, handy brick violence, baseball bat violence, edged piece of metal violence, deliberate motorvehicle violence, stangled-with-a-rope violence, pushed off a ledge violence, and quite a few others if I felt like laying it on any thicker.
Would you be calling for the outlawing of all forms of martial arts after a person is beat to death? Boxing? All of those exist for the sole purpose of maiming and killing people, to check the argument I know you'll pull about the purpose of firearms. How about putting age restrictions on knives and other edged weapons after totaling up all the deaths to knives, swords and axes? Will you be championing an attempt to repeal gravity and inertia next? Because Sir Issac Newton was apparently a murderous son of a bitch throughout history. Will you write your representatives saying that no structure taller than a single floor should be allowed to prevent falling/pushing deaths? Better ban tourists doing things like rock climbing and hiking on mountain trails too, just to be sure.

Tell me something, at what point does whichever tool was used to kill someone become less important than someone being killed to you? Because dead is dead, guns just happen to be the favorite scapegoat of people tunneling visioned on their pet cause. If america has a problem, it's a violence problem, and that won't be solved by going after the implements, since we were killing each other on a pretty impressive scale with just spears and bows. And rocks and sticks before that. But actually going after cause of the problem is too hard for people like you isn't it? Far neater, and it certainly looks better on the news, to be pushing for some magical silver bullet to solve one of the oldest problems plaguing humanity, right?

Hm, we could pour resources into rebuilding our justice system into something worthy of the name, emplace an economic system that isn't dog-eat-dog, employ a high nationwide standard for mental health and actually start trying to cure social ills that drive people to enraged desperation, but nah. Too hard. Much easier to demonize guns and say they're the problem.

Oh, and nice attempt at collective guilt, by the way. Actually, no, it was pretty fucking pathetic, but I expect nothing more from you. Try again, I could use a laugh.

This is all a massive strawman. I didn't call for gun control, and have not called for gun control throughout this thread nor others before. I simply pointed out that the toll from gun violence yesterday was not zero, as you tried to espouse.

Want to try again, without making up a position for me?

[Flagg]

Now, let's see what is happening:

The National Rifle Association announced Thursday that it supports a review of bump fire stocks to see if they are in accordance with federal law.

The group's support comes following the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas earlier in the week and amid calls to ban the devices, which allow semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic weapon fire.
The NRA is typically the nation's most prominent lobbyist group against stricter gun regulations.
"The National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA said in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
The debate on banning bump stocks is taking place on Capitol Hill. Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo is planning to introduce legislation Thursday to ban the sale of them.
"I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough when it comes to sensible gun policy," Curbelo told reporters Thursday.
Curbelo said his office has been "flooded" with calls from fellow lawmakers inquiring about the bill.
The White House is open to legislation to ban bump stocks, press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday, and added that the administration wants to be part of the conversation in the days to come.
"We're certainly open to that moving forward," Sanders said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated her proposal to increase background checks and call on House Speaker Paul Ryan to create a select committee to find common ground on gun violence at a CNN town hall Wednesday.
Pelosi also noted that there could be bipartisan support around the banning of sales on bump stocks.
"I do think there would be bipartisan support coming together to pass a bill to make it illegal to sell those because you can buy them now," Pelosi said Wednesday.
On Thursday, Ryan also signaled he would be open to examining the legality of bump fire stocks, telling Hugh Hewitt in an interview that "clearly that's something we need to look into."

And another Article announces the NRA has banned bumpstocks at their private rifle ranges.

Good. Doesn’t mean much since they are still behind resistance to simple mandatory background checks on all sales, but it’s a sidestep in the sort of rightish direction if you squint real hard.

[Broomstick]

One thing raised on a Sunday morning talk show was that this guy was wealthy, which essentially allowed him to live completely independently of others. He did not need to interact with anyone if he chose not to. He did not need personal attachments.

That does not mean he was a completely isolated hermit - he wasn't - but the lack of connections made it that much less likely that anyone would realize he was heading towards something like this, His interactions with others were largely superficial, not revealing what was going on inside his head.

[Zixinus]

Given that the filth that perpetrated the massacre in Las Vegas was already off his rocker and decided to kill a bunch of people, do you seriously think that having an extra step in front of getting a bump stock would have actually stopped him?

Except, as far as I can tell, he didn't actually brake the law when he was buying the guns. He brought the guns legally. He brought the the bumperstocks legally (as far as I know). That is the problem.

Again, with enough skill and dedication, he could have made his own gun. But that takes a tremendous amount of premeditation and far more effort than displayed here. The Las Vegas shooter was a bizarre case in that he had all the resources he needed but he is an outlier in many respects, including having plenty of funding.

I'm rolling my eyes at the sudden craze in regulating more Evil Black (or Evil OD Green) things because of how absolutely stupid and useless it is.

Except this "craze" has been going on since mass shootings have been noted by the media. The BBC article has a video that traces this since the 1980s and talks about how mass shootings are getting worse, taking more lives every year. It is revived every time a mass shooting happens, even if the interest ebbs down afterwards.

Telling them that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it while innocent people die is rather hard to swallow if you were actually in danger or had someone you love die in one of these things.

Hm, we could pour resources into rebuilding our justice system into something worthy of the name, emplace an economic system that isn't dog-eat-dog, employ a high nationwide standard for mental health and actually start trying to cure social ills that drive people to enraged desperation, but nah. Too hard. Much easier to demonize guns and say they're the problem.

While I agree with you, the problem is timeframe and scale of effort. To do what you say would require the complete rebuilding of mayor institutions in the country (of course that still makes it a worthy goal).

The issue is that the gun-control crowd sees this as a practical problem of the US not having strict enough gun laws. The comprasion with other countries, even Canada that is perhaps the most like the US than not, has been brought up in this very thread. Therefore, gun control is a practical solution that can be made now.

It does not help that the topic has become polarized. Democrats see themselves as people that want to accomplish what you write on other fronts but the Republicans standing in their way at every turn.

[Flagg]

I find it pretty funny (not, “ha ha” of course, but if I don’t point that out some troll will pretend that I am a psychopath laughing at dead people to try to make this about me because I made them pee their pants one time) that a country music crowd gets shot up by a standard lunatic with a gun and a trick to get around the full-auto ban that all of the knowledgeable gun folks say makes it nigh-impossible to aim (yes, I know full auto isn’t easy, either) and this time the NRA, knee-jerk “NEVAR!!! NO GUN CONTROL EVAR!!!” crowd, and our batshit crazy Cracker In Chief all fall into support of banning something firearm related. I wonder if that would be happening if it had been a hip hop crowd and in 2015.

[Flagg]

Given that the filth that perpetrated the massacre in Las Vegas was already off his rocker and decided to kill a bunch of people, do you seriously think that having an extra step in front of getting a bump stock would have actually stopped him?

Except, as far as I can tell, he didn't actually brake the law when he was buying the guns. He brought the guns legally. He brought the the bumperstocks legally (as far as I know). That is the problem.

Again, with enough skill and dedication, he could have made his own gun. But that takes a tremendous amount of premeditation and far more effort than displayed here. The Las Vegas shooter was a bizarre case in that he had all the resources he needed but he is an outlier in many respects, including having plenty of funding.

I'm rolling my eyes at the sudden craze in regulating more Evil Black (or Evil OD Green) things because of how absolutely stupid and useless it is.

Except this "craze" has been going on since mass shootings have been noted by the media. The BBC article has a video that traces this since the 1980s and talks about how mass shootings are getting worse, taking more lives every year. It is revived every time a mass shooting happens, even if the interest ebbs down afterwards.

Telling them that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it while innocent people die is rather hard to swallow if you were actually in danger or had someone you love die in one of these things.

Hm, we could pour resources into rebuilding our justice system into something worthy of the name, emplace an economic system that isn't dog-eat-dog, employ a high nationwide standard for mental health and actually start trying to cure social ills that drive people to enraged desperation, but nah. Too hard. Much easier to demonize guns and say they're the problem.

While I agree with you, the problem is timeframe and scale of effort. To do what you say would require the complete rebuilding of mayor institutions in the country (of course that still makes it a worthy goal).

The issue is that the gun-control crowd sees this as a practical problem of the US not having strict enough gun laws. The comprasion with other countries, even Canada that is perhaps the most like the US than not, has been brought up in this very thread. Therefore, gun control is a practical solution that can be made now.

It does not help that the topic has become polarized. Democrats see themselves as people that want to accomplish what you write on other fronts but the Republicans standing in their way at every turn.

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul. Unless it’s a US “private security” guy shooting you. Because if a US Soldier used one to shoot a suicide bomber it would be a war crime.

[MKSheppard]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul.

https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files ... port_0.pdf

This is over what 16 years old, but some basic stats stand out:

1.) Don't be a black male.

2.) Don't be on the streets at night -- "Only about 23 percent of DC homicides occur between 5 am and 3 pm."

[LadyTevar]

I find it pretty funny (not, “ha ha” of course, but if I don’t point that out some troll will pretend that I am a psychopath laughing at dead people to try to make this about me because I made them pee their pants one time) that a country music crowd gets shot up by a standard lunatic with a gun and a trick to get around the full-auto ban that all of the knowledgeable gun folks say makes it nigh-impossible to aim (yes, I know full auto isn’t easy, either) and this time the NRA, knee-jerk “NEVAR!!! NO GUN CONTROL EVAR!!!” crowd, and our batshit crazy Cracker In Chief all fall into support of banning something firearm related. I wonder if that would be happening if it had been a hip hop crowd and in 2015.

Several of the Country Music Stars that were performing at the Concert are no longer supporting the NRA.
Oddly, the NRA's "Country Music Stars" program no longer mentions any of those stars on their website.

[Zixinus]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul. Unless it’s a US “private security” guy shooting you. Because if a US Soldier used one to shoot a suicide bomber it would be a war crime.

Okay, two things:

1. Why are you quoting me this? You are now talking about crime and gun-related crime (I guess?). I was not.

If you are remaking on the "polarized" thing, I simply remarking that it has become a Democrat vs. Republican thing, another strict "this or that" topic where you can't really make your own opinion that didn't conform to party lines.

2. Do you have data to back that up? I am honestly curious whether you are making a hyperbole or actually stating fact.

[Flagg]

Well it’s pretty fucked up that you have a better chance of catching a hollow-point round standing in our nation’s capital than in Kabul. Unless it’s a US “private security” guy shooting you. Because if a US Soldier used one to shoot a suicide bomber it would be a war crime.

Okay, two things:

1. Why are you quoting me this? You are now talking about crime and gun-related crime (I guess?). I was not.

If you are remaking on the "polarized" thing, I simply remarking that it has become a Democrat vs. Republican thing, another strict "this or that" topic where you can't really make your own opinion that didn't conform to party lines.

2. Do you have data to back that up? I am honestly curious whether you are making a hyperbole or actually stating fact.

Well I was remarking on the polarized thing in that it’s not a polarized thing. If you ask most Americans about individual “gun control” issues regarding legislation that could be put in place you get a massive amount of overlap in agreement as long as you don’t use the same terminology. So while “Gun Control” may be a polarizing term (the way Obamacare is), actual measures to keep gun and ammo away from criminals and lunatics aren’t (the way the Affordable Care Act isn’t).

Sorry I wasn’t more specific, my right hand is fucked up and posting is difficult with cutting and pasting.