LAs Vegas shooting machine gun

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

I just can't take everything the media has reported about the shooter at face value. It's hard for me to believe this guy could have carried out such an attack by himself. He had enough arms to arm a small police force and he also had explosive material which was found in his car. He also had video cameras in his room and hallway. His target also makes no sense. It was just a run of the mill outdoor concert.


Btw, I'm not spewing conspiracy theories. I'm just baffled about this shooting.

Eh, not that unbelievable. It simply shows that it's premeditated and not a spur of the moment event. Clearly this person had a reason for it, though whether it was because he was an ISIS convert or believed that all country music lovers are evil Republicans or simply because he wanted to see the world burn, we may never know. Gun collecting is common and LV has shooting ranges, so it wouldn't bat an eye to see someone bring their weapons into a hotel. Explosives are easily made as well. The internet has seen to that, sadly.

Keep in mind Sandy Hook is believed to have been chosen at random and not targeted for any specific reason as well. Sometimes people just want to cause pain and suffering. They don't care who it is, so long as someone is feeling it.

As for this shooter, I'm keeping to tradition and not bothering to learn his name. I know it wont happen but I wish more news outlets and the like would simply refer to those people as a nameless shooter to stop them from gaining any sort of infamy they may have wanted. If it stops even one person from deciding to do a similar shooting event like this because they know their name wont be mentioned, it would be worth it.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Zedbra

Making drugs illegal sure worked well, so tell us how well it will work for guns.

We have laws on assault, rape, and theft. Are you saying that they aren't reducing these crimes to an extent?

How about we lessen assault laws. From now on, everybody can assault another as long as no weapon is in use. Imagine how many people will easily just throw fists at each other in a feud?

Nobody is saying to completely stop gun violence. It's reducing the chances and rate from of it happening.

Originally Posted by Zedbra

Well, they are regulated quite heavily. In fact, there have been over 300 million more guns bought in the US in the last 15 years and the murder rate has decreased by over 40%. So, regardless of numbers, regulations, and your huge red font, more laws and/or regulations mean squat to people that wish to break laws and those people that wish to harm others. And less guns does not mean less murder. More people means more fucked up people, though. Add red font where you see fit.

What is "heavily" to you? To me, if a household can own 5+ AR, it's not regulated heavily. If a customer can walk into a store with a permit and purchase AR on the same day, it's not regulated heavily. If Wal-Mart can sell shotguns to a customer, it's not regulated heavily. Open carry, is not considered heavy regulation.

Less gun does mean less murder. If a murderer does not have easy access to firearms and executes his plan by household items, like knives and bats, the chances of someone being murdered is reduced, and possibly prevented. It's easier to defend against a knife than a gun, don't you agree? On top of that, if a murderer was to execute his plan with a knife, it's less likely he will kill multiple people in a short amount of time, had he used a gun, don't you agree? People would more likely defend and fight back if the weapon was a knife rather than a gun, don't you agree?

Numbers and statistics cannot prove or disprove that gun regulations will reduce the rate of and death by shootings. However, they do prove that there are just as many nut jobs during a time period compared to another. So the argument with these statistics versus gun control is out the window.

Again, it's common sense that, if there is less firearms being circulated in the country, the number of shootings will be reduced. Attacks/murders by knives and other weapons might increase, but the survival rate against these attacks would also be higher than guns.

If a shooting was executed using a handgun, the numbers of casualties will be far less than if one was carried out with an AR.

Obtaining firearms illegally is an invalid argument to gun regulations. We're talking about what CAN be controlled here.

[Zedbra]

^ well, the numbers from the FBI do not agree with your opinion. Open carry has been on a dramatic rise in several states and murder and mass shootings generally don't happen in those areas; furthermore most mass shootings happen specifically in areas that guns are "regulated" or banned. There are several reports and stats that do in fact show that areas with high legal gun ownership there are less gun deaths.

Facts suck when they don't agree with your emotion, eh. But the facts are there if you truly wish to educate yourself before going on diatribes about common sense - because the only thing you can say about common sense these days is that it isn't common at all.

[westopher]

So let’s pick a different stat.
Why, in Canada, where these weapons are much more difficult to get, and to stockpile enough of them to staff a swat team. Where not everyone is walking around with a gun in their pants.
Why is our gun violence so much less?
Is it just because we say please more?

[MarkyMark]

The facts can look however you want them to look when you pick and choose anything that supports your theory and disregard anything that doesn't.

You mentioned how the war on drugs hasn't worked, so what you're saying is if you can't eliminate every shooting with more gun regulations then there's no point in doing anything at all? You don't think that if it even helped lower shootings by 5% that it's worth doing to save lives?

[Sid Vicious]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a677978947b7

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

lder men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

[westopher]

I think everyone will agree with that article in the sense that people need to have a better support system to prevent the feeling of despair that can trigger these events.
What I can’t agree with is that there is no point in multiple approaches to the problem that include making weapons harder to obtain.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Zedbra

^ well, the numbers from the FBI do not agree with your opinion. Open carry has been on a dramatic rise in several states and murder and mass shootings generally don't happen in those areas; furthermore most mass shootings happen specifically in areas that guns are "regulated" or banned. There are several reports and stats that do in fact show that areas with high legal gun ownership there are less gun deaths.

Facts suck when they don't agree with your emotion, eh. But the facts are there if you truly wish to educate yourself before going on diatribes about common sense - because the only thing you can say about common sense these days is that it isn't common at all.

You truly are an idiot. Firearms can be smuggled from state to state very easily. Just because one state has higher regulations plus more mass shootings, doesn't mean that gun control laws isn't effective.

And do you have facts that in those "mass shootings" that you claim, are the guns purchased in the same state?

The stats are bias and so many factors can and can't be considered if gun control law is working or not. Are the firearm purchased legally? Are they registered by the shooter? If not, how were they obtained? Did the shooter steal it? Were they purchased in the same state the shooting. In states where open carry is allowed, a child can steal a gun from their parents easily. Whereas, in states where firearms must be concealed at all times, the likelihood of it being stolen is lower. I don't think I have explain simple 1+1 mathematics to you.

You constantly keep defending why gun control law won't help. Why don't you tell us why lighter or no gun control will help, or is better?

[trollguy]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

I just can't take everything the media has reported about the shooter at face value. It's hard for me to believe this guy could have carried out such an attack by himself. He had enough arms to arm a small police force and he also had explosive material which was found in his car. He also had video cameras in his room and hallway. His target also makes no sense. It was just a run of the mill outdoor concert.


Btw, I'm not spewing conspiracy theories. I'm just baffled about this shooting.

Oh, dont get me wrong. never thought that. i'm baffled as well. just happened that i was surfing and that link came up just before i read your comment.

[bcrdukes]

Originally Posted by westopher

So let’s pick a different stat.
Why, in Canada, where these weapons are much more difficult to get, and to stockpile enough of them to staff a swat team. Where not everyone is walking around with a gun in their pants.
Why is our gun violence so much less?
Is it just because we say please more?

Sorry, but we say sorry even if we're right.

Sorry.

[Hondaracer]

This fixation on AR's is misguided imo..

Just cause its a "black gun" or AR doesnt mean anything persay, all these high capacity mags can be fit into most guns, just because its made out of metal and looks "scary" now everyone hops on dem AR's..

1 AR or 5 AR's doesnt really make a difference either, the amount you can own as a legal gun owner is irrelevent. 1 $3000 AR can shoot THOUSANDS of rounds without jamming or needing a cleaning. You have a pile of high capacity magazines and all you need is 1 gun.

There are enough scary AR's in the states that regardless of laws to enforce their ownership, somone like this guy would be able to get his hands on more than enough of what he needs to carry out this attack whether he goes through the legal means or not.

Heavy enforcement on legal purchases isnt going to stop somone who is willing to rain bullets down onto a crowd.

The argument of doing nothing as opposed to doing SOMTHING is obviously a cut and dry one, but the effectiveness of any sort of new laws outside of destroying large amounts of fire arms isnt going to do shit.

[MarkyMark]

Yeah well you have to start somewhere. Even if it takes 100 years to get where you want to be it doesn't mean you should just call it a lost cause.

We could say climate change is too far gone now so why bother doing anything, just keep pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and enjoy the ride till the Earth burns.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by Zedbra

^ well, the numbers from the FBI do not agree with your opinion. Open carry has been on a dramatic rise in several states and murder and mass shootings generally don't happen in those areas; furthermore most mass shootings happen specifically in areas that guns are "regulated" or banned. There are several reports and stats that do in fact show that areas with high legal gun ownership there are less gun deaths.

Facts suck when they don't agree with your emotion, eh. But the facts are there if you truly wish to educate yourself before going on diatribes about common sense - because the only thing you can say about common sense these days is that it isn't common at all.

154 homicides in Canada with a gun in 2010.

If what you're saying is true then that number can be dramatically reduced if Canadians had the same rate of gun ownership as the US and we were all allowed to open carry.

Or could it be so low because there are a lot less guns and they're hard to get?

[iwantaskyline]

Isn't it interesting how low those numbers are during that ten year ban?

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

154 homicides in Canada with a gun in 2010.

If what you're saying is true then that number can be dramatically reduced if Canadians had the same rate of gun ownership as the US and we were all allowed to open carry.

Or could it be so low because there are a lot less guns and they're hard to get?

"hard to get"

all of us in the shooting thread are ordering the same gun used in the sandy hook shootings to our door in Canada.. what is hard to get about that?

It's the volume of guns and people that is the difference.

[iwantaskyline]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

"hard to get"

all of us in the shooting thread are ordering the same gun used in the sandy hook shootings to our door in Canada.. what is hard to get about that?

It's the volume of guns and people that is the difference.

The volume of guns is due to how easy the guns are to obtain - if you think otherwise you're an idiot.

Getting a license for a firearm in Canada is much harder compared to America, our gun laws are not even comparable.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

"hard to get"

all of us in the shooting thread are ordering the same gun used in the sandy hook shootings to our door in Canada.. what is hard to get about that?

It's the volume of guns and people that is the difference.

You didn't just click buy on Amazon and have it show up to your door I assume? I don't have any kind of gun license, can I buy a gun online? Can I walk into a store and buy one?

People who have to take steps to aquire a license for a firearm generally seem to be responsible people. I'm pretty sure even my best friends wouldn't just give me their gun for a day if I asked them nicely because I'm not licensed.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

"hard to get"

all of us in the shooting thread are ordering the same gun used in the sandy hook shootings to our door in Canada.. what is hard to get about that?

For starters, having to pass a federal safety course and obtain a license from the federal government.

[Hondaracer]

Have you gotten a firearms liscence in Canada?

Do you know what’s involved? I’d hardly call it “hard” at all. It’s 10 hours over a weekend and you can buy any AR you want, as much ammo as you want etc.

The only difference is how readily available high capacity magazines are. While restricted firearms are just that, restricted, that only means you can only legally transport from your home to a range. It’s not the law stopping someone from opening fire in a mall or concert etc.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

For starters, having to pass a federal safety course and obtain a license from the federal government.

Which I'm sure isn't "hard" to do, but it at least makes buying a gun more difficult than buying a Snickers bar.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Have you gotten a firearms liscence in Canada?

Do you know what’s involved? I’d hardly call it “hard” at all. It’s 10 hours over a weekend and you can buy any AR you want, as much ammo as you want etc.

The only difference is how readily available high capacity magazines are. While restricted firearms are just that, restricted, that only means you can only legally transport from your home to a range. It’s not the law stopping someone from opening fire in a mall or concert etc.

Hard or not, it's still another piece of red tape to go through.

[Hondaracer]

you cant just go buy guns in the states either..

In Canada, in order to buy guns that can take 15/25/50/100 round magazines easily attainable in the states, it takes 1 day over a weekend, usually under 7 hours. If you have a clean background, there will be zero issues.

If you want to buy restricted weapons, you need to take 1 additional day of training.

So you guys who are saying it's so simple to buy guns in the states, it's easier than ONE day of training with under 8 hours of total guidance? while i dont know the in's and outs of the american licensing system, i highly doubt its that much "easier" than Canadas.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Do you know what’s involved? I’d hardly call it “hard” at all. It’s 10 hours over a weekend and you can buy any AR you want, as much ammo as you want etc.

I remember about 5-6 years ago, the Canadian gun lobby was pushing for more Canadians to get their licenses. Just like in the US, there are lots of Canadians who enjoy owning and shooting guns whether for hunting or sport shooting.

It's still not a cake walk though. I had no issues with getting my license, but I know people who were denied. I know one guy who had his reference mention that "he can get a little crazy when he drinks, but he doesn't drink anymore".

Boom, denied.

So there are quite a few checks and balances in place. That said, the more time I spend in the online Canadian gun forums, the less faith I have in gun owners. The most vocal of the gunnies are small in numbers, but they make us all look bad with what they're saying.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

you cant just go buy guns in the states either..

In Canada, in order to buy guns that can take 15/25/50/100 round magazines easily attainable in the states, it takes 1 day over a weekend, usually under 7 hours. If you have a clean background, there will be zero issues.

If you want to buy restricted weapons, you need to take 1 additional day of training.

So you guys who are saying it's so simple to buy guns in the states, it's easier than ONE day of training with under 8 hours of total guidance? while i dont know the in's and outs of the american licensing system, i highly doubt its that much "easier" than Canadas.

8 hours vs 8 minutes. In a lot of places in America you don't need a license, just a phone call where they run a background check. Even better, if you buy at a gun show from an unlicensed seller you don't even need to get a background check, you can just buy the fucking gun.

So, do you think Canada should adopt these rules, since you seem to make it sound like the licensing process up here is a waste of time. You would be fine with anyone just getting to walk into a store with no training whatsoever and buy a firearm?

[Badhobz]

Less guns please. Us Chinese Canadians needs to learn how to use 4 way stops first.